This is a revision petition against the order of Additional Commissioner (Consolidation and Revenue) Lahore dated 4th February, 1988, whereby he upheld the order of District Collector Okara dated 22nd June, 1987 allotting Horse Breeding tenancy in Chak No.12/1-R, Tehsil and District Okara, in favour of Muhammad Amir respondent.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Balia father of the petitioner, and a breeder died on 21st January, 1984. His breeding record was reportedly unsatisfactory, and the District Remount Officer recommended the resumption of Horse Breeding tenancy. The District Collector thereupon resumed the tenancy and gave it on supurdari to Gulzar petitioner. The Remount Officer then called for applications for the allotment of the tenancy and recommended the following in order of priority:-- (l.)Ch. Muhammad Anwar son of Ch. Ghulam Hussain Ist priority.
(2)Alam Sher son of Mullah Khan 2nd priority.
(3)Muhammad Abbas son of Lai Khan 3rd priority.
(1) Gulzar son of Balia Khan
(2) Muhammad Amir son of Gheba
(3) Lai. Son of Ghcba.
(4) Jalal Khan
(5) Sher During the hearing of the case counsel for Muhammad Amir, Lai, Sher, Jalal and Muhammad Gulzar alleged before the District Collector that the District Remount Officer had neither heard the candidates for the allotment of the tenancy nor assessed their merits. The District Collector therefore vide order dated 21-9-1986 remanded the case _ to the Remount Officer to hear the candidates and thereafter make his recommendation. The DRO vide letter dated 24-2-7987 recommended the following in order of priority.
(1)Muhammad Anwar son of Ghulam Hussain. Ist priority.
(2)Muhammad Amir son of Gheba Khan. 2nd priority.
(3)Alam Sher son of Mala Khan. 3rd priority.
The above mentioned persons alongwith their counsel appeared before the District Collector.
Muhammad Gulzar, Muhammad Abbas, Lai Khan, Jalal Khan and Sher also appeared before him. It was observed by the District Collector that Muhammad Anwar who had been recommended by the DRO at priority No.1 was not the resident of the Chak and had purchased 2 kanals 1.5 marlas of land on 25-1-1986. He therefore ignored him. However, he accepted the claim of Muhammad Amir who was recommended by the DRO at priority No.2 as he was an owner of the Chak and was a permanent resident. It was also observed that the disputed tenancy had first of all been allotted to his father and thereafter allotted to his real brother Balia who did not put in a satisfactory performance and therefore his successors had no preferential claim. He therefore considered the merits independently of all the candidates and allotted the tenancy to Muhammad Amir holding him to be the best candidate amongst the applicants.
3. Aggrieved by the order Muhammad Anwar, Gulzar alias Ghulla (petitioner) and Muhammad Abbas filed three separate appeals before the Additional Commissioner. The main ground taken in appeal by Gulzar the present petitioner was that he was the son of deceased allottee. The Additional Commissioner considered the argument and observed that the tenancy was resumed from Balia (predecessor of the petitioner) on the ground of unsatisfactory record. Consequently the petitioner had to share the penalty of bad breeding record of his late father. He therefore rejected the appeal. Hence this revision.
4. I have heard the parties and their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his great-grandfather Charagh Khan had been allotted the tenancy in dispute under Horse Breeding Scheme about 50 years ago and Balia Khan his father during his life-time had got suffient experience regarding breeding of animals. He was maintaining the mare and complying with the conditions of the lease to the satisfaction of the department. After the death of his father the respondent and other persons approached the DRO and at first tried to prove that the petitioner was not even the son of Balia. The DRO ignored the petitioner and recommended the respondent for the allotment of the tenancy without considering the merits. The District Collector had also allotted the tenancy to the respondent and the appellate Court rejected the appeal of the petitioner without any solid grounds. The petitioner being the only son of the late breeder was entitled to the allotment of the tenancy. He alleged that Muhammad Amir respondent had contended for the allotment of the tenancy against the father of the petitioner but had failed. Son of a breeder has a better claim than the brother of the breeder. It was also denied that the record of Batia as a breeder was unsatisfactory because if this had been the position the tenancy would have been resumed from Balia during his lifetime. Actually Balia had given four mules to the Department. He argued the bound mare was still with him and being the only son of Balia, the petitioner, was appointed Lambardar of Chak No.12/1-R, as successor to his father. He claimed that he was cultivating the tenancy since the death of his father and that District Collector had originally rightly ignored the report of the DRO which was mala fide.
5.Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the tenancy from Balia was resumed due to unsatisfactory record.
6. The Assistant Commissioner Okara, reported that the tenancy was previously held by Balia son of Gheba and after his death his son Gulzar was in possession of the tenancy and mare was also in his custody. He had further reported that due to unsatisfactory record of Batia the tenancy was allotted to the respondent by the District Collector.
7. 1 have considered the arguments and perused the record of the case as well as the record of the DRO. The tenancy was allotted to Gheba son of Charagh on 15-4-1921. He died on 27-9-1970 and the tenancy was allotted to Balia. The record shows that Baba was fined Rs.100 for keeping the mare in poor condition vide order dated 24-3-1977. A foal died on 5-3-1978 due to negligence of the breeder and he was warned to be careful in future vide order dated 7-3-1978. He was again fined Rs.100 on 17-3-1979. It is recorded on 22-11-1983 that no foal was given to Government for the last year and he was fined Rs.200 and notice was to be issued to appear before the DRO. The breeder died on 21-1-1984. However according to record no action was taken against him at any time for the resumption of the tenancy. The claim of the petitioner is that four foals were supplied to the Department which were not mentioned in the register of the DRO. A perusal of the impugned order shows that no proper enquiry had been conducted by the DRO while recommending for the allotment of the tenancy. The parties in litigation are nephew and uncle. The tenancy after the death of the original allottee had been allotted to the father of the petitioner and as claimed by him the uncle (Respondent) had contested the allotment. The only reason given for ignoring the petitioner is bad record of his father. The record of A Balia is not absolutely first class but the fact remains that no serious action was taken against Balia whose tenancy remained with him. In the circumstances the case is remanded to the District Collector who should again consider the merits of the parties and decide the case afresh after examining the record and keeping in view the performance of Balia as compared to other tenants in his district.