Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appellate Side No. 57 of 1960‑61, decided on 11th February 1962, District Multan.
‑Appeal-- Treated as Revision.
‑breeding grant‑Candidate 70 years of age, too old to look after work connected with breeding ‑ District Remount Officer's recommendation‑Not the last word.
P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 147 ref.
Ghulam Ali Alvi for Petitioner.
Nisar Hussain Shah and Nur Muhammad for Respondents.
This has been described as an appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, dated 8‑4‑1961, whereby allotment of Horse Breeding Square No. 36 situate in Chak No. 80/Ib‑L, Tehsil Khanewal in favour of Abdul Majid, was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh disposal. I shall, however, treat it as a revision petition.
Horse Breeding Square No. 36 was granted to Abdul Hamid who was a student. Abdul Majid the present petitioner made a complaint that this grantee was not eligible under the rules.
On enquiry it was found that the grantee had no land in the Chak and as such the Collector held him ineligible for the grant on account of fraud and suppression of facts, and resumed the square under his order, dated 5‑6‑1959. Recommendations were called for, for the grant of the square in dispute from the District Remounts Officer. These were furnished by him vide memorandum dated 31‑3‑1960. He passed the following remarks against the candidates "as per priority"
| Name & Father's name. | Ownership of Land in the Chak. | Breeding and Animal management experience. | Other claims Service. | Whether father has horse breeding square. | Other remarks. |
| 1, Asghar Ali Shah s/o Muhammad Hussain Shah | 6 acres | Fair | Mily/Civil Brother's on is serving as Lieut in the army. | No. | No. |
| 2. Risaldar Haji Muhammad Yusaf Khan | 27 acres | Good Too old (70 yrs.) to look after the cows personally. | Served in the Army as Risaldar for 28 yrs. has a number of C.Cs
| No. | No. |
| 3. Ex‑Hav. Abdul Majid s/o Ch. Ghulam Nabi. | 1 acres | Good | Served as Havaldar in PAOC. for 8 yrs. 2 real brothers served the Army, father served the Army during 1914. Copies of C.Cs attached | No. | At present Keeper in the Central Co‑op. Bank willing to leave service if H.B. square allotted. |
He also noted that the other candidates had also appeared before him, who possessed relatively lesser merits than tile above three individuals. The above recommendations were dealt with in the office note, dated 19‑5‑1960 and it was men tioned that according to their claims, ex‑Havaldar Abdul Majid, appellant, was the best. The S.D.O., Khanewal signed his approval to the note and submitted it for orders to the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), who approved of the grant of the square in Abdul Majid's favour in his brief one‑lined order
As many as 4 appeals were filed before the Additional Commissioner who set aside the order and remanded the case to the Collector for fresh selection after proper publicity and after a proper re‑examination of the claims of the different candidates by the D.R.O. The Additional Commissioner was led to this view because he found it difficult to reconcile the fact that the names of the three candidates recommended, had been shown "as per priority", but the name of the apparently least deserving one was shown as No. 1, with remarks on breeding and animal management experience were as fair only, while that of the second most deserving one was shown at No. 2, with breeding and animal management experience as good, but it was added that he was too old (70 years) to look after the cows' personally. The learned Additional Commis sioner appears rather to have been upset by the mention of "cows" in a case in which recommendations for horse breeding were considered. This, however, was obviously a typing error and did not deserve to be made so much off. The most deserving candidate was in this list shown as No. 3 with breeding, and animal experience as unqualifiedly good.
A careful perusal of the recommendations shows that the priority in this case is obviously to run from bottom to top and not from top to bottom. I am sure the Additional Com missioner would have arrived at the same assessment if he had not allowed himself to be bewildered by the mistaken use of the term cows' as mentioned above. My learned brother Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue's ruling reported in P L D 1959 (Rev.), at page 147 also does not appear to have been brought to his notice, wherein he was pleased to observe:
"The revision petition has not been argued on any specific ground except the fact that the District Remount Officer had placed him No. 1 in his list. This is true, but while the District Remount Officer's recommendation should receive due weight, it cannot be accepted as the last word, specially where the merits of his recommendation are not explained. I think the Collector was justified in arriving at the conclusion that Muhammad Aslam was the best candidate".
In the present case also, in my opinion, there can be no doubt that of all the candidates recommended by the D.R.O., ex- Havaldar Abdul Majid, petitioner, is the best If he were not considered to be the best, the Additional Commissioner should have called up the candidates before him as well as obtained a revised information from the D.R.O. and decided the case on merits himself, rather than put the candidates again through the process of going back to the Collector with further appeals and revisions. I summoned the candidates to appear in person. Although I have the highest regard for the meritorious services rendered by Havaldar Haji Muhammad Yousaf Khan, yet I am of the same opinion as the D.R.O. that he is too old to look C after animal breeding personally and that ex‑Havaldar A. Majid, the petitioner would prove a better breeder than others.
In the result, therefore, I accept the revision, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Collector.
S. B.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer