' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No, 429 of 1989 preferred by Muhammad Tufail, appellant, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 16-10-1985 dismissing his Writ Petition No, W.P. 3723 of 1985 and two petitions for leave to appeal Nos. C.P.LA. 334-L of 1991 and C.P.LA. 1006-L of 1991 filed by Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Tufail, petitioners, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 9-4-1991 dismissing the Writ Petition No, W.P. 2881 of 1985 filed by Muhammad Yar. For the purpose of disposal of these petitions Muhammad Tufail shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellant", whereas Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Sharif as "respondent No,1" and "respondent No,2" respectively.
2. The dispute in this case pertains to the allotment of horse-breeding grant situate in Chak No,35/G.D., Tehsil and District Okara under the Horse-Breeding Scheme. The tenancy in respect of the said land had fallen vacant on the cancellation of the grant last held by one Muhammad Khan.
3. In 1977 the Collector, Okara, invited recommendations from the District Remount Officer with regard to persons eligible for allotment. On. 8-8-1977 the District Remount Officer recommended about 40 names with the name of Muhammad Tufail, appellant, at Srl. No,1 and Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1, at Srl. No,6.
4. It appears that no steps were taken by the Collector for finalizing the allotment for 3 years.
However in 1980 he again called for recommendations from the District Remount Officer in respect of persons eligible for allotment of the grant. At this stage it appears that Muhammad Sharif, respondent No,2, who had earlier not applied for the grant had also filed an application. On 24-9- 1980 the District Remount Officer recommended a list of names, placing Muhammad Sharif, respondent No, 2, at Srl. No, 1, Muhammad Yar, respondent No, 1, at Srl. No, 2 and Muhamamd Tufail, appellant, at Srl. No,4.
5. The Collector, Okara, after perusing the case of appellant and two respondents by his order dated 4-4-1982 held Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1 as eligible for the grant..
6. Being aggrieved by the above order, Muhammad Tufail, appellant, Muhammad Sharif Respondent No,2 and Fazal Muhammad preferred appeals before the Additional Commissioner. On 11-1-1983, the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Lahore Division, accepted the appeal of Muhammad Sharif, respondent No,2, and held him to be entitled to the grant, and dismissed the other two.
7. Being aggrieved by the above order, Muhammad Tufail, appellant, Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1 and one Fazal Muhammad filed revision petitions before the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. On 8-5-1983 the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenues, accepted the revision petition of Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1, and held him to be entitled to the grant. However, later on 7-7- 1983 the same Member took up the hearing of the other two revisions and dismissed the same, upholding the entitlement of Muhammad Sharif, respondent No,2, to the grant.
8. The above two conflicting orders gave rise to two writ petitions, one filed by Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1 and the other by Muhammad Sharif respondent No,2. Both the said writ petitions were accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore Court on 18-3-1984, who set aside the conflicting decisions of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 8-5-1983 and 7-7-1983 and remanded the cases to him for fresh decision in accordance with law within six months.
9. During the proceedings in remand before Mr. S. M. Nasim, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Muhammad Tufail, appellant, moved an application seeking transfer of the cases to some other Member, Board of Revenue, to which no objection was raised on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who were present in person before him. With the consent of the contesting parties, Mr. S.M. Nasim, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, transferred the cases to the Member (Judi.), Board of Revenue, for decision. Malik Zawar Hussain, Member (Judi.), Board of Revenue, heard the cases and by his order dated 12-6-1985 held Muhammad Sharif, respondent No,2, to be entitled to the grant.
10. Being aggrieved by the above judgment, Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1,-filed Writ Petition No, W.P. 2881 of 1985, Muhammad Tufail, appellant, filed Writ Petition No,W.P. 3723 of 1985 and Fazal Muhammad filed Writ Petition No,W.P. 4237 of 1985 in the Lahore High Court challenging the same.
The said writ petitions were dismissed on 6-7-1985, 16-7-1985 and 25-1-1986 by Manzoor Hussain Sial, J., Saad Saood Jan, J., and Mian Fazal-e-Mahmood, J., respectively.
11. It appears that Fazal Muhammad did not agitate the matter any further. Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1, however, challenged the order of the High Court through Civil Appeal No, 172 of 1986 before the Supreme Court, which was allowed on 3-3-1986 and the case of Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1, was remanded to the High Court to consider the question whether Malik Zawar Hussain, Member (Judi.), who had disposed of the revision petitions, had juridiction to do so and whether the revisions which had been transferred to him for disposal were competently so transferred. Muhammad Tufail, appellant, also questioned the order of the Lahore High Court passed against him on 16-10-1985 through C.P.LA. No, 513 of 1986, in which leave was granted on 21- 8-1989 so as to send the case back to the High Court for fresh decision, as had been done in the case of Muhammad Yar, respondent No, 1, but unfortunately the appeal was not set down for hearing at an early date, as ordered by the Court, and the said appeal is now before us.
12. On remand Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial again took up the Writ Petition No, W.P. 2881/85 of Muhammad Yar, respondent No, 1, and dismissed the same on 9-4-1991, holding that Malik Zawar Hussain, Member (Judi.), Board of Revenue, had jurisdiction to deal with the revision petitions and was competently seized of the revision petitions, which he had disposed of by his order dated 12-6- I985.
13. Being aggrieved by the above decision, Muhammad Yar, respondent No, 1, and Muhammad Tufail, appellent, filed special petitions for leave to appeal No, CPLA 334-L/91 and CPLA No, 1006-L/91, which are also now before us for disposal.
14. On behalf of Muhamad Tufail, appellant, it is submitted that he wa: graded as good and his name was recommended at Srl. No, 1 by the District Remount Officer in his recommendation which he had submitted on 8-8-1977 which should have been given weight. It is submitted thai the Collector, Okara held the file in abeyance for 3 years, as a result of which other people also intervened and filed their applications, which applications should not be considered as eligible for the grant which had opened in 1977 for allement. On his behalf it is further submitted that he had residence and property in Cha No, 35/G.D. And that his name was also recommended at Srl. No, 4 in th second list of 24-9-1980 and that in both these recommendations he ha been graded as good horse-breeder and that his case had superiorit over others. It is lastly submitted that by virtue of section 6 (1) of th West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, the revisions pending befor the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, could not have been transferred t any other Member of the Board, without the approval of the Government, an that the consent of the parties did not confer jurisdiction on Malik Zawa Hussain, Member (Judi.), Board of Revenue, to dispose of the revisio petitions.
15. On behalf of Muhammad Yar, respondent No, 1, it is submitted tha he was placed at Srl. No, 6 in the first list of recommendations dated 8-8-197'. And then at Srl. No, 2 in the second list dated 24-9- 1980. It is further submitted that he owned property and resided in Chak No, 35/G.D., where he was also Lambardar, and that the horse-breeding grant prior to 1974 was with hi: grandfather, from whom it was resumed and that the said land was still in Superdari with him and that he owned a mare. It is submitted that he had sufficient knowledge of animal breeding and that he was not a convict and the only criminal case registered against him had resulted in his acquittal.
16. On behalf of Muhammad Sharif, respondent, it is submitted that he had been serving as a Major in the Army, that he had land in Chak No,35/G.D., though not very large, but large landed property in the adjoining Chak No, 34/G.B. As regards residence, it is submitted that under the terms of the scheme he could resume residence in the village within six months of the grant and he had given his undertaking in that respect. It is further submitted that he had rendered manifold services to the Government, that his son Muhammad Ali, who is serving in the army was attached with the Frontier Corps, Balochistan, from horses and mares were maintained by the mounted infantry and he had 48 horses under his command. It is also submitted that his nephews MajorAbdur Rashid and Captain Muhammad Maqsood are in the army and his two sons are patwaris and the appellant is also the Chairman of the Ushr Committee. In respect of the candidature of Muhammad Tufail, appellant, is is submitted that he was involved in criminal case FIR No, 32/73, that he did not reside in Chak No, 35/G.D. And that his name was at Srl. No,
4. In the recommendation of 24-9-1980, where it was stated that he had only fair knowledge of animal breeding and management. As regards the candidature of Muhammad Yar, respondent No, 1, it is submitted that he was involved in criminal case under section 493/380, P.P.C. Resulting in a theft of a buffalo in Police Station Bhagola, that he had misappropriated the income of the land in dispute which was given to him on Superdari that his name was recommended at Srl. No, 6 in the first list dated 8-8-1977 and at Srl. No,2 in the second list submitted on 24-9-1980 and in the first list it was stated that he had poor knowledge of animal breeding and management. It is further submitted that being Lambardar was no qualification for having experience in horse-breeding and that he had not deposited Ushr of the Government in the treasury and a case in that respect was pending before the GA. (R), Okara. It is lastly submitted that the horse-breeding tenancy was resumed from the grandfather of Muhammad Yar in 1934 due to the fact that he was not breeding good mares.
17. We have heard, arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the two respondents and have perused the record. So far as the question of entitlement is concerned, namely, as to who is the best person entitled to the allotment of the grant, there are concurrent findings in favour of Muhammad Sharif, respondent No, 2, by the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Lahore Division, the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, and the three learned Judges of the Lahore High Court who dismissed the writ petitions of Muhammad Tufail, appellant, Muhammad Yar, respondent No, 1, and Fazal Muhammad. There being no jurisdictional error in the orders, the learned Judges of the High Court did not interfere in the matter and I myself would not also like to interfere now.
18. As regards the questions whether Malik Zawar Hussain, Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue,' was competently seized of the three revision petitions, which he decided on 12-6-1984, and he had the jurisdiction to decide the same, the same have been answered in favour of the learned Officer by Manzoor Hussain Sial, J, in his judgment dated 9-4-1991 dismissing the writ petition of Muhammad Yar, respondent No,l. In that case learned Single Judge referred to the various provisions of the law relating to the matter and rightly came to the conclusion that there was no jurisdictional defect in the proceedings before Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue. Even otherwise, when the three revision petitions were pending before Mr. S.M. Nasim, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Muhammad Tufail, appellant, himself moved an application seeking transfer of the petitions to some other Member, Board of Revenue, in respect of which no objection was raised on behalf of Muhammad Yar and Muhammad Sharif, respondents Nos.1 and 2. It, therefore, hardly lies in their province now to raise any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the learned Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, to deal with the cases. This objection being baseless is, therefore,. Rejected.
18. On behalf of Muhammad Tufail, appellant and Muhammad Yar, respondent No,1, it is submitted that the recommendations of 24-9-1980 should not have been taken into consideration by the Officers of the Colonies Department and that the case should only have been dealt with on the basis of the recommendations of the District Remount Officer, dated 8-8-1977. It is too late in the day to take up this fresh matter before the Supreme Court now. At no stage either before the Collector, or the Additional Commissioner, or the Member, Board of. Revenue, any party ever took up the position that the Collector should only have confined his attention to the fir.,t recommendation, or that he should not have asked for a fresh recommendation, or that the said second recommendation should not have been legally made, or the same was made mala fide for the benefit of a particular person. It was not even suggested that the Collector had mala fide held up the first recommendation in abeyance, to suit his whims or to benefit any particular party. The learned Additional Commissioner (Rev.) in his order, dated 11-1-1983 referred to the fact that the Collector, Okara, was not satisfied with the list of 1977 and that is why he had asked for fresh recommendations, which were submitted in 1980. It is too late in the day to now challenge the recommendations of 24-9-1980 for the purposes of determining eligibility.
19. Strong. Effort was made to suggest that the Collector's findings of 4-4-1982 in favour of Muhammad Yar, respondent No,2, should not have been set aside, but given due weight. It cannot be denied that the order of the Collector is subject to appeal or revision and that since the Collector ignored the list of recommendations of the District. Remount Officer dated 24-9-1980, which had to be given due consideration, as held by this Court in Asghar v. Safia Begum PLD 1976 SC 435, his order was displaced in favour of Muhammad Sharif, respondent No,2, whose candidature on ground of his good experience in animal breeding and management was given due weight and recognised.
20. In view of the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in Muhammad Tufail appellant's appeal Civil Appeal No,429 of 1989 and petition Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,1006/L of 1991 and Muhammad Yar's petition Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,334/L of 1991, all of which are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.