' Through this Constitutional Petition Muhammad Anwar Khan petitioner seeks declaration to the effect that orders, dated 24-6-1990 and 3-6-1989 passed by learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, respondent No,1 and Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan Division, Multan, respondent No,2, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading to this petition briefly are that Ch. Khan Muhammad, father of Muhammad Anwar Khan petitioner and Haq Nawaz Khan, respondent No,3 and grandfather of Iftikhar Ahmad, respondent No,4 was a tenant of the State land under Horse Breeding Tenancy situated in Chak No,84/10-R, Tehsil and District Khanewal. The father of Iftikhar Ahmad respondent namely Rab Nawaz died in the year 1979. Khan Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 died on 7-1-1985. After the death of Khan Muhammad Breeder/tenant, District Collector considered the suitability of the petitioner and respondents No,3 and 4 for grant of tenancy. He on the report of the District Remount Officer and taking into consideration the merits of each candidate granted the tenancy in favour of the petitioner on 8-12-1985. Feeling aggrieved thereby the other two candidates namely Haqnawaz Khan and Iftikhar Ahmad respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan on 7-6-1987. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 then filed separate revision applications before the Member Board of Revenue Punjab, which were accepted and the case was sent back to District Collector, Khanewal for fresh decision in accordance with law. District Collector, Khanewal again granted tenancy in favour of the petitioner on 15-9-1988. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 again filed appeal before Syed Fazal Hussain Shah, Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan. Since Mr. Fazal Hussain Shah had previously decided the case as District Collector, Khanewal, therefore, the respondents filed application before Member, Board of Revenue for the transfer of appeals from him. Before the transfer application could be decided Mr. Fazal Hussain Shah, Commissioner Multan was transferred. So, the Member, Board of Revenue dismissed the application as infructuous. However, he observed:-- "The present Commissioner may now decide the case on merits and according to law after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard."
' When the file came back to the Commissioner, he entrusted it to the learned Additional Commissioner (C), Multan Division, Multan, respondent No,2, who vide his order, dated 3-6-1989 accepted the appeal of Haqnawaz Khan respondent No, 3 and allotted the disputed land to him.
The appeal filed by Iftikhar Ahmed respondent No,4 was accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by this order Muhammad Anwar Khan petitioner filed revision before Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, respondent No,1, which was dismissed on 24-6-1990, hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the observations made by the Member, Board of Revenue while dismissing the transfer application filed by respondent No,3, the appeal could not have been transferred to Additional Commissioner (C); that the order of grant of tenancy to the petitioner was passed by District Collector, Khanewal according to the decision of the full Board of Revenue, Punjab contained in memo No, 364-89/PA/SECY.(R), dated 24-4-1989, the appeal should have been heard by Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, himself; that the recommendations made by District Remount Officer for the grant of tenancy to the petitioner have been ignored without justification; that the learned Additional Commissioner had reversed the order of the District Collector on flimsy grounds; that under the relevant law, the petitioner was not required to be the resident of the place of tenancy 4/5 years before the grant of tenancy and that the findings of the learned Additional Commissioner (C) respondent No, 2, are based on misreading/ non-reading of material evidence.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the appeal against the orders passed by District Collector could be heard by the Commissioner as well as by the Additional Commissioner (C), Multan Division, Multan. There was no legal bar for the Additional Commissioner(C) to hear and decide the appeal tiled by the respondents against the orders of District Collector in favour of the petitioner. In his order, dated 22-2-1989 passed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, the learned Member has observed that the learned Commissioner may decide the case on merits. The word "may" is of great significance. So, it was within the discretion of the learned Commissioner to hear the appeals or entrust them to the Additional Commissioner (C) for disposal. The decision of the full Board of the Revenue contained in memo. No,364-89/PA/Secy.
(R), dated 24-4-1989 is directory in nature. Even otherwise, this memo. Cannot supersede the relevant provisions of law under which the appeals against the order passed by the District Collector, Khanewal can be heard and decided by the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of material evidence by the Additional Commissioner(C) or by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. From the trend of the orders passed by them, it is very much obvious that they have carefully attended to the material on record and the surrounding circumstances and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them. The impugned orders do not suffer from jurisdictional defect. The learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Member, Board of Revenue have not flouted any relevant provision of law. The petitioner had physically submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Commissioner(C) and had not raised any objection as to his jurisdiction to entertain or hear the appeals against the order of District Collector. So it does not lie in his mouth to say now that he should not have heard the appeals filed by the respondents.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with the well reasoned orders of respondents Nos.1 and 2. So, the petition is dismissed in limine.