A horse-breeding tenancy, measuring one square, comprised in Khasra No. 68; situate in Chak No. 132/16-L, Tehsil Mian Channun, District Khaaewal, had been allotted to one Ali Muhammad, on whose death, in June, 2988, the District Remount Officer, Sahiwal, on 21-1-1989, reported that none of the legal heirs of the original tenant being eligible for re-allotment of the tenancy, the same was liable to resumption. He had actually strived hard to effect a compromise amongst sons and daughters of the deceased, ten in number, and on failure had made such a recommendation. In his report dated 21-1-1989, the District Remount Officer had recorded his observation to the effect that no body was ready to relinquish his claim in favour of the other, despite having been afforded sufficient time in that behalf, but the tenancy could be allotted in the name of only one candidate.
The clash of interest amongst the legal heirs of Ali Muhammad would make them inimical toward. one another, they would indulge in judicial proceedings and the same would affect bound mare adversely. Some other suitable tenant should, therefore, be found out for allotment of the tenancy, on its resumption, it was so recommended by the District Remount Officer.
2. The matter was taken up by Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Tarar, D.C. District Collector, Khanewal, who summoned the legal heirs of Ali Muhammad. Muhammad Rafiq s/o Ali Muhammad represented that the District Remount Officer's report was not based on facts, pleading that he had actually been assisting his father in maintenance of the mare. His application was forwarded to the District Remount Officer, for his comments. In his report dated 28-8-1990 the D.R.O. again did not recommend Muhammad Rafiq for afotment of the land. He added that he had found the condition of the mare as poor, and Muhammad Rafiq, according to his finding, had never been associated with the management or breeding of bounded animals and had no experience in the field. He reiterated his recommendation earlier made in his letter dated 21-1-1989.
3. This report was contested by the legal heirs, according to whom, it was biased. The District Remount Officer had been pressing the legal heirs of Ali Muhammad for a compromise, and on his failure in the process, he had turned hostile. The District Collector, then, paid a personal visit to the land on 22-12-1990, and interviewed all the members, as also elders of the locality. Out of seven brothers and three sisters, two brothers, Barkat Ali and Rehmat Ali, were on one side, and the rest of the family was on the other side, and the latter all were supporting Muhammad Rafiq. They were prepared to forego their rights in favour of Muhammad Rafiq and contested Barkat Ali's entitlement to the lot in his capacity of being the eldest of the brothers.
4. The District Collector, on inspection .of tenancy, came to the conclusion that the mare was in perfect condition and the tenancy was well maintained. Muhammad Rafiq had been associated with the management of the mare over the last several years and even during the lifetime of his father. As compared to Barkat Ali petitioner, Muhammad Rafiq had more experience about animal management. In his favour all the other legal heirs, except two brothers, had forgone their claim.
Report of the District Remount Officer, Sahiwal was totally misleading and was not based on facts.
Merely because the legal heirs of Ali Muhammad had not put up a unanimous candidate and come to a compromise would not discredit those amongst eligible heirs to lay a claim to the tenancy. 1n the opinion of the District Collector, each legal heir, under the law of inheritance, was entitled to get about 2-1/2 acres. The two brothers, Barkat All and Rehmat Ali, were found to be already in cultivating possession of 5 acres of land. The District Collector was of the view that the whole family should not be deprived of the lot, simply because two brothers were not agreeing on family settlement.
5. Barkat Ali agitated the matter before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, who dismissed his appeal, by reason of its non-prosecution, on 30-9-1991. Further recourse to the Board of Revenue also remained abortive, as the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Mr. Jeewan Khan, dismissed the revision petition by an order announced on 19-2-1994. He actually disposed of the revision petition in terms of a compromise, having been arrived at before him amongst legal heirs of Ali Muhammad.
6. Barkat Ali has now approached this Court by way of a writ petition, taking. up absolutely odd pleas, which no body would lend ears to. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner had condemned him unheard, as no opportunity of heating had been provided to him. His counsel was not available and he had gone to bring him in Court, but the Commissioner had decided the appeal in the meantime, without hearing him or his counsel. It, however, transpires from perusal of the Commissioner's order dated 30-9-1991 that the appellant had not been able to bring his counsel, and the other side had objected, and the impression gained was that Barkat Ali was only trying to prolong the proceedings.
7. It has even been disputed by the writ petition that a compromise had been arrived at, amongst the legal heirs of their late father, Ali Muhammad, before the MBR. Barkat Ali says that his counsel had dodged him and obtained his thumb-impression on a blank paper and without letting him know what it was meant for had probably produced it before the MBR, for its use, for reducing into writing some settlement purported to have been brought into being by the legal heirs of the late tenant. It would however, be preposterous to think that the MBR had become a party or had in any way allowed the forum to be utilized for playing fraud upon Barkat Ali petitioner. The MBR, in para. 3 of his order, has made express mention of the arrangement arrived at in the form of a compromise. The same was actually in accord with the one outlined in the District Collector's order dated 26-12-1990. Cultivating possession of Barkat Ali and Rehmat Ali upon five acres of land was kept intact, and the rest of the land was given to the remaining legal heirs, who made a conceding statement in favour of Muhammad Rafiq.
8. It is to be pointed out that the matter falls within the exclusive domain of the Revenue Authorities, and if any factual enquiry was to be made, it could be done by those people, and not by this Court, in these summary proceedings The District Collector was the primary man, who had personally visited the tenancy, and on getting in contact with all concerned, including respectables of the village, he had formed an impression that amongst the two main contestants, Barkat Ali and Muhammad Rafiq, the latter- was better qualified for the lot, leased out for animal breeding. This Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, does not find any valid premises for interfering with the order of the District Collector, upheld by the Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue. The writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.