' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby, Mumtaz, Petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 16-10-1979 of the District Collector, Multan- Respondent No 3, order dated 12-4-1981 of the Commissioner. Multan Division -respondent No, 2 and the order dated 18-3-1982 of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab -respondent: No, 1, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition as disclosed in the Petition are that lot No, 9 comprising of khasras Nos. 51/1, 2, 9 to 11 and 20 situated in Chak No, 118/15-L, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan was available for grant on lease. Mumtaz, petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz Respondent No, 4 both applied for it. The learned Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Khanewal recommended the lease for 5 years in favour of Respondent No, 4 and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that Manzoor, real brother of the petitioner, having been recommended for grant of other lot, and as such, the petitioner being member of the same family was not entitled to lot No,
9. The District Collector, also approved the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner in favour of Respondent No, 4 on 16-10-1979. The petitioner challenged the grant of lease to Respondent No, 4 before the learned Commissioner and learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Respondents Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, but without success. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a landless tenant of Chak No, 118/15-L was entitled t the grant against Respondent No, 4 who, being resident of a different cha and already a grantee of lot No, 5 in village Jungle Bhoosy Pindi had no entitlethent at all.
4. The petitioner was the actual tiller of lot No, 9 and has made the land fertile and productive.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record I find that the petitioner has not filed the copy of the recommendation made by the learned Assistant Commissioner: Collector in favour of respondent No,
4. The order of the District Collector (Annex. 'A') shows that the learned Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal made the selection through drawing of the lot, etc. And 177 persons were found eligible, the name of respondent is at serial No,
89. The learned Commissioner has discussed the points raised before him by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in paras. Nos. 3 and 4 has stated :- "The learned counsel for the respondent has denied this lease but the learned counsel for the appellant has produced before me an attested copy of a decision of my learned predecessor dated 18.5-1980 which shows that the present respondent has been given lot No, 5 of village Bhoosi Pindi, Tehsil Khanewal on lease for two years from Kharif to Rabi, 1981 on 21-11-1979. The learned counsel for the respondent has, therefore, conceded this point but he has maintained and it has been verified from the revenue record that this lot is not in possession of the present respondent. I have heard the counsel of both the parties and gone through the instructions of temporary lease scheme. There is no bar on a temporary lessee acquiring temporary lease under the Scheme of September, 1979, through auction. There is also no bar in the Scheme of March, 1978 on non- residents getting temporary lease if otherwise found eligible. The only ground on which this appeal was mainly based was the fact that the respondent was non-resident but this objection is invalid and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed."
' The learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab has also applied his mind to the legal and factual aspects of the matter and aiso tended to the arguments. In para. No, 4 he has stated :- "I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, The disputed land was leased out to the respondent by the District Collector on 16-10-1979 and according to the copy of order attached by the petitioner it reveals that another lot No, 5 in village Jungle Bhoosy Pindi was leased out to the respondent on. 21-11-1979. According to the Government Policy a lessee could have a lease of only 124 acres of land. The lease of the disputed land is prior to the lease of village Jungle Bhoosy Pindi as such this lease will stand in favour of the respondent. The result is rbat the revision petition fails and is hereby rejected. However, it should be ascertained by the District Collector whether the respondent has any lease in village Jungle Bhoosy Pindi as contended by the petitioner and if it is correct action in accordance with the policy of the Government be taken."
6. 1 find that the petitioner had not any vested right for the grant of lease of lot No 9. The Assistant Commissioner/District Collector was quite competent to refuse his prayer. The learned counsel has failed to point out any legal disqualification in respondent No,
4. The learned Commissioner and the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, have concurrently upheld the grant in favour of respondent No, 4 which, in fact, was through drawing of lot, etc. ' For what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.