' This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14-2-1972 of the Commissioner, Multan, by which the appeal of Elahi Bakhsh petitioner from the order dated 27-12-1971 of the Collector, Multan refusing to renew his tenancy under the Horse Breeding Conditions published with Punjab Government Notification No, 964-S, dated the 24th June, 1915, was dismissed as being incompetent.
2. Brief facts are that on 1-5-1940, the petitioner was granted a Horse Breeding Tenancy in Chak No, 75/15-L, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan under the conditions published with Punjab Government Notification No, 964-S, dated 24th June, 1915 as amended by Punjab Government Notification No, 5080, dated the 21st February, 1919. After expiry of the renewed term of tenancy on 1-5-1968, the District Remount Officer reported that it should not be renewed further as the record of the petitioner was not satisfactory. A fresh report was called, but the District Remount Officer again declined to recommend the renewal of tenancy. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner/Collector; Multan, after hearing the petitioner refused to renew the tenancy and called for fresh applications for filling up the vacancy, vide his order dated 27-12-1971. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Commissioner, who rejected the same on 14-2-1972 on the ground that the order of the Collector refusing to renew the tenancy was final and no appeal was competent against it in view of clause (4) of the Statement of Conditions published with Punjab Government Notification No, 2838-C, dated 1-7-1942 which replaced the earlier Statement of Conditions published with Punjab Government Notification No, 964-S, dated the 24th June,1915 as amended by subsequent Notification No, 5080 dated the 21st February, 1919.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all orders made by the Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 or under any Statement of Conditions issued thereunder, whether they are orders of allotment of original tenancy or relate to renewal or refusal to renew thereof are appealable and revisable by virtue of applicability of the corresponding provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, under section 7 of the Act and therefore clause (4) of the Statement of Conditions published with Punjab Government Notification No, 2838-C, dated 1-7-1972 in so far as it tends to attach finality to the orders of the Collector refusing to renew a tenancy is ultra vires the Act and thus void and ineffectual.
4. The argument though attractive is without force. A Statement of Conditions is issued by the provincial Government under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and any tenancy that may be granted to any person is to be held subject to such statement of condi- tions. Any restrictions or limitations contained in such statement of conditions shall, notwithstanding any rule or law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary in force, be valid and take effect according to their tenor in view of section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 read with section 11 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Again, even though section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act makes the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and Chapter VII of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 applicable to "all proceedings under this Act", yet according to proviso to this section nothing in the Land Revenue Act or the Punjab Tenancy Act, or any other law relating to tenancy for the time being in force shall be so construed as to vary or invalidate any conditions entered in any Statement o Conditions issued by the Provincial Government. In other- words, any condition entered in a Statement of Conditions issued under section 10, even though it collides with or derogates from any right recognised by any law for the time being in force including the Land Revenue Act and the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, would prevail and take effect according to its tenor. Therefore, it would follow that Condition No, 4, which, by exercising the right of appeal, has attached finality to the orders of Collector refusing to renew a horse breeding tenancy, cannot be invalidated merely by invoking, under section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the applicatio of the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the Punjab Tenanc Act, 1887 which make, "all the proceedings taken under the said Act' amenable to appeal and revision. A reference in this connection can also made with advantage to a decision of the Lahore High Court in Wal Muhammad v. The State (1), in which it has been held that where any condition has been issued giving discretion to authorities to renew or not to rene any lease, the claim for renewal cannot be advanced as of right of the lessee.
5. This being the legal position, the Commissioner was perfectly withi his right to hold that the order of the Collector refusing to renew the tenanc was final and no appeal from it was competent in 'view of Condition No, 4 This would, however, not preclude the Board of Revenue from exercising under section 10 (3) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab Act, 1912, its powers of general superintendence and control over the Collector passing any orders under these conditions.
The Board of Revenue would therefore be competent to revise any orders passed by the Collector eve though these may have been declared to be final under any Statement o Conditions issued under section 10(2) of the Act. As for the present case I find that the petitioner is an old grantee and has been maintaining the mare satisfactorily right from 1940 to 1968 when he was reported adversel by the District Remount Officer. In these circumstances, I think it-would be more equitable and just if the Collector calls for a fresh report from the District Remount Officer and in case it is found that during the pendened of these proceedings the petitioner has maintained the mare in accordance with the conditions, his tenancy may be renewed for another term of three years. With this direction, the case is remanded to the Collector, Multan for fresh decision.