' With the concurrence of the counsel for the parties this case is treated as admitted case.
Argument heard.
2. Khuda Yar has, in this Constitutional petition, called in question order dated 14-2-2002 passed by Member, Board of Revenue (respondent No,2) and has prayed that the same be declared as illegal against facts, without jurisdiction and the Horse Breeding Tenancy which had fallen vacant on the death of Humayun Khan be allotted in his favor.
3. Humayun Khan father of the petitioner was allotted 27 acres of land in Tehsil and District Sahiwal under Horse Breeding Scheme. He died on 5-1-1998. District Collector, vide order dated 13-7-1999 allotted the said tenancy in favor of Muhammad Yar, elder brother of the petitioner on the basis of recommendation made by the District Remount Officer.
4. Petitioner's appeal against that order was dismissed by Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan on 17-11-1999. Revision against that order filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Member, Board of Revenue on 14-2-2002.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that right from District Collector to the Member, Board of Revenue, none had applied judicial mind and their orders are based on the report of District Remount Officer, who did not discuss the entitlement of each legal heir. Besides that an important aspect was ignored viz. That the deceased father of the petitioner had executed a will disclosing that the petitioner had remained associated with him in supervising the mare.
6. It was also vehemently argued that tenancy was allotted to Muhammad Yar on the ground of primogeniture which was no longer available having been declared illegal being repugnant to the injunctions of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.
7. The writ petition was strongly opposed by Mr. Tariq Murtaza Malizai, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2. Arguments heard; writ petition and its annexures perused.
8. A perusal of order passed by District Collector shows that after receipt of report of the District Remount Officer, he had taken up the case on judicial side and had passed order after hearing the legal heirs and after applying the judicial mind. He had also given due consideration to the report of District Remount Officer who is a technical expert in the field of Horse Breeding. Perusal of the order passed by Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan reveals that it is entirely reasonable; conclusions drawn by him are based on plausible reasons.
9. The will allegedly executed by the father of the petitioner was neither produced before the District Collector nor before the Commissioner hence it was rightly observed by the Member, Board of Revenue in the impugned order that the petitioner did not produce any concrete evidence about his having remained associated with the tenancy affairs during the lifetime of his father.
10. Not only the impugned order but the orders passed by the B Deputy Collector and Commissioner are also entirely reasonable. They had the jurisdiction to pass the orders. The impugned order was passed in revision by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Revisional order C arising out of civil litigation cannot be challenged in writ petition. Reference:
(i) 1991 SCM R 970; (ii) 1986 SCM R 1396; (iii) 1989 SCM R 1392.
' For the reasons stated above, writ petition is devoid of any merit, it is accordingly dismissed.