' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Muhammad Nawaz, the petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against order, dated 18-2-2002, whereby the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dismissed his constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,6070 of 2001).
2. One Mehmood son of Jehana, who was tenant of the questioned land under Horse and Mule Breeding Scheme, died on 5-7-1998. Thereafter, for the allotment of the said tenancy District Remount Officer submitted a report, on 13-2-1999, recommending the petitioner as a suitable person for the grant of tenancy. The District Collect, Khanewal after considering the said report re- allotted the tenancy in favour of the petitioner w,e,f, 5-7-1998 for an initial period of six years, vide order, dated 10-7-2000. The said order was assailed by respondent No,3 (Mian Liaquat Ali), paternal-uncle of the petitioner, before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan through filing an appeal, which was allowed and he was held entitled and suitable person as compared to the petitioner for allotment of the tenancy, vide order dated 25-9-2000. Petitioners' revision petition was dismissed by the learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue, vide order, dated 19-5-2001 thereby confirming the order of the Commissioner. The constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,6070 of 2001), filed by the petitioners, calling in question order passed by the learned Member (Judicial- II), Board of Revenue was dismissed by the learned Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan vide impugned order, dated 18-2-2002, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Commissioner, while reversing the findings of the Collector, did not render reasons and his own findings and that the orders passed by the Commissioner and learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue suffer from misreading and non-reading of record of the case. He further submitted that the tenancy under Horse and Mule Breeding Scheme is not heritable and the choice of the Collector, which is based on the report of the District Remount Officer, is always to be given preference. His next Contention is that neither the report of the District Remount Officer was considered nor policy regarding allotment of tenancy was kept in view for non-suiting the petitioner by the learned Commissioner and Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue. He relied upon the Raja Muhammad Aslam v. Raja Muhammad Sarwar and others 2000 SCM R 531 and Subedar Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia begum and another PLD 1976 SC 435.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the available record.
Although the District Remount Officer recommended the petitioner for granting him the tenancy, which recommendations were accepted by the Collector, yet the Commissioner after hearing the parties reversed the findings of the Collector after rendering cogent and well-based reasons. The plea of the learned counsel that Commissioner failed to give findings are not borne out from the order passed by the learned Commissioner, as he in para.5 of the order, dated 25-9-2000, thoroughly compared the case of Muhammad Nawaz and Liaquat Ali, the two contestants, and after giving solid and convincing reasons decided the matter in favour of respondent No,3. The conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner were that respondent No,3 is in cultivating possession of land; remained associated with deceased breeder, during his life, for maintaining the tenancy and that respondent No,3 is more qualified than the petitioner, who is involved in criminal cases.
The learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue after evaluating the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner, which were at variance, rightly held that the rule of primogeniture or qualification were not the determining factor but the only consideration is the suitability of person.
The learned Member (Judicial-II), Board of Revenue not only confirmed the findings of the Commissioner but also rendered additional reasons for deciding the matter in favour of respondent No,3. The question of fact concurrently determined by the Commissioner and learned Member, Board of Revenue were affirmed by the learned High Court and thus, three Courts consistently disagreed with the findings of the Collector, on which the petitioner is heavily relying upon. It is true that in such type of cases choice of the Collector is to be given weight but it is equally true that almost all the forums in the Revenue hierarchy and the learned High Court after considering the choice of the Collector in petitioner's favour came to the similar conclusions, which are not only in accordance with the record of the case but also in consonance with the law on the subject. Assuming there are minor misreading or non-reading of record, but those are not sufficient to dislodge the concurrent findings arrived at by the three Courts including the learned High Court. We are not persuaded to reverse the well-reasoned and based findings of the three Courts.
5. Now coming to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel. In the case of Subedar Muhammad Asghar (ibid), it has, inter alia, been held by this Court that the question as to the selection of suitable candidate for the allotment of a tenancy was purely internal with the Government and the respondent was not, as of right, entitled to lay her claim to the allotment, while in the present case the Commissioner; Member, Board of Revenue and then the learned High Court concurrently held that respondent No,3 was a suitable candidate for the allotment of tenancy and thus, the petitioner could not claim the tenancy as a matter of right. In view whereof, the case of Subedar Muhammad Asghar (ibid) does not favour the petitioner rather dicta of this Court is against him.
6. As regards the case of Raja Muhammad Aslam (ibid), suffice it to say that in the said case the recommendations of the District Remount Officer for grant of tenancy were accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, the Member, Board of Revenue and also affirmed by the learned High Court and under the said set of circumstances, it was held that as findings of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collect based on recommendations of District Remount Officer were accepted by all the forums including the learned High Court, therefore, the recommendations of the District Remount Officer should be given due weight, while in the present case only the Collector decided in favour of the petitioner, while the other forums, as noted above, including the learned High Court decided against the petitioner. In view whereof, the said case relied upon by the learned counsel is also of no avail to the petitioner.
7. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned order and find that the learned High Court while affirming the findings of the learned Commissioner and Member, Board of Revenue did not commit any illegality and thus, we see no reasons to reverse the same. Learned counsel was not able to show us anything from record, which could persuade us to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by the three Courts including the learned High Court. No case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.
8. In view of the above, the present petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.