' One Khair Din was allotted land under the Horse Breeding Tenancy Scheme in Chak No. 115/15-L, Tehsil and District Khanewal. He died on 31-12-1974. The District Remount Officer did not recommend the heirs of the deceased i.e. Jan Muhammad etc. Who are the sons and the widow, respondents No. 3 to 5 for tenancy in their favour vide his report dated 26-5-1977. The heirs of the deceased, Jan Muhammad etc. Represented to the Collector who again called for a report from the District Remount Officer. The latter again did not recommend the heirs of the deceased, Jan Muhammad etc. Vide report dated 31-5-1980. The Collector, accepting the report held the heirs of the deceased, Jan Muhammad etc. To be unsuitable and directed the District Remount Officer to invite fresh applications. This is vide order dated 21-7-1980. The heirs of the deceased Jan Muhammad etc. Filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 5-8-1981. In consequence fresh applications were called for in pursuance of the order of the Collector dated 21- 7-1980. Besides the heirs of the deceased, Jan Muhammad etc. The petitioner, one Abdul Hayee and his son Fazal Haq applied for the tenancy. The District Remount Officer found the heirs of the deceased, Jan Muhammad etc. The original allottee, unsuitable. He recommended Abdul Hayee at No. 1, his son Fazal Haq at No. 2 and the petitioner at No.
3. The Collector found the petitioner to be the most suitable person and granted him the tenancy on 31-5-1983. Abdul Hayee, his son Fazal Haq and the heirs of the deceased, Jan Muhammad etc. Filed appeals against the petitioner. The Commissioner found Fazal Haq to be most suitable person for the tenancy and thus accepted his appeal, setting, aside the order of grant of tenancy to the petitioner by the Collector and finding the heirs of the deceased Jan Muhammad etc. To be unsuitable. This is vide order, dated 2-4-1984. The heirs of the deceased, Jan Muhammad etc. And the petitioner filed separate revision petitions. The revision petition of the petitioner was rejected and that of the heirs of the deceased Jan Muhammad etc. Was accepted by Mr. S.M. Nasim, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue vide order dated 27-3-1985. The petitioner had filed this Constitutional petition on 17-9-1985.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as the order of the Collector dated 21-7-1980 which found the heirs of the deceased tenant, Jan Muhammad etc. Unsuitable for tenancy and that order had become final after the rejection of their appeal on 5-8-1981, they were not entitled to the tenancy and the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue has erred in law in granting the tenancy in their favour. It is secondly contended that the heirs of the deceased tenant, Jan Muhammad etc. Had not been recommended by the District Remount Officer and the tenancy has to be confined amongst the persons who were recommended by the District Remount Officer. Learned counsel relied on Sub. Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another (PLD 1976 S.C. 435) and read out the last sentence from headnote (g) which is to the effect "Choice confined to those considered suitable and qualified for allotment".
3. As regards the first contention that since the heirs of the deceased tenant, Jan Muhammad etc. Had been found to be unsuitable previously by the Collector on 21-7-1980, they could not be granted tenancy, it may be noticed that on their appeal against the said order though the same was rejected, yet it was observed by the learned Appellate Authority that the then appellants "are not barred by giving fresh applications." This is vide order dated 5-8-1981. In other words, they were found unsuitable as heirs of the deceased tenant to have the tenancy but it was made quite clear that amongst the fresh applicants, they can join in and if they were considered to be more suitable than others they could be granted the tenancy. As regards the second contention, it may be noticed that the quotation from the headnote (g) is not quite accurate. The accurate statement of law is at page 448 and is to the following effect:-- "Needless to add here that the recommendation made by the District Remount Officer was entitled to due weight, although it may not be the last word on the point." In other words, the recommendations of the District Remount Officer are given due weight but if he does not recommend somebody, it would be for the competent authority to determine his recommendations and to accept the representation of a person who has not been recommended by the District Remount Officer. If it were to be otherwise, the latter would the final authority i.e. The District Remount Officer and not the Collector whereas the law is that the District Remount Officer only makes recommendations and the order is passed by the Collector who is competent to consider the recommendation as well as other relevant factors. In the case in hand, as regards the petitioner who had been granted tenancy by the Collector and against whom the appeal was being heard by the learned Commissioner, the latter observed that "The respondent who personally appeared looks unfit and unfirm. A man of such a physique cannot be capable/suitable for such tenancy. The case for the selection of a tenant started much earlier and the respondent purchased land measuring 9 kanals 16 marlas (Hiba) on 6-10-1980 and before this he was a non- proprietor in this chak. He owns land in Chak No. 114/15-L, which means that he is totally an absentee." The learned Commissioner was quite right in setting aside the order in favour of the petitioner for the grant of tenancy under the Horse Breeding Scheme in favour of a person with the qualifications quoted by him. The learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue on his revision petition has observed that "the D.C. Allotted the tenancy to Amjad Hussain an old man of 80 years who did not own any land in the Chak of Horse Breeding Tenancy and manoeuvred a gift of land in order to make himself eligible. He has no background and experience of Horse Breeding. His claim was rightly rejected by the Commissioner who, however, found Fazal Haq better qualified to hold the tenancy." The findings are so clear and based on observations that there is no scope whatsoever for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution. The tenancy has been granted to the heirs of the deceased tenant, Jan Muhammad etc. For the reasons given by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and are to the following effect:- "The father of petitioners Jan Muhammad etc. Was the last allottee of this tenancy. Naturally the tenancy would have gone to his sons but it was not done as the reports of the D.R.O. Were against them. From the record and the facts now brought out before this Court it appears that the earlier reports of the D.R.O. Were not correct but were vague and biased. The D.R.O. Himself has visited the tenancy and inspected the mare etc. And found every thing in order". In these circumstances, if the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue has granted the tenancy to the heirs of the deceased tenant, i.e. To Jan Muhammad etc., the petitioner who has no right as seen above, can hardly complain and call in question the grant in favour of the respondents No. 3 to 5. He having no right, has no locus standi to challenge the grant of the tenancy to the said respondents.
4. For the foregoing reasons there is no merit or force in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.