' Ali Ahmad son of Rajada participated in the auction of lease of State land of Lot No,15, Square No,57, Killa Nos.1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 20 measuring 6 acres, 1 Kanal, 14 Marlas of Chak No,19/JB, Tehsil Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad. The only other competitor was Akbar son of Sohna. Ali Ahmad offered highest bid of Rs,1,600 per acre. His case was processed in the Colony office. Some residents of the Chak made a complaint that auction of the said lot never took place and two persons i,e, Ali Ahmad and Akbar, who were close relations, were shown in the bid sheet to have fictitiously participated in the said auction. District Collector vide his order, dated 12th November, 1995 refused to approve the highest bid and ordered for re-auction of the said lot. Ali Ahmad filed appeal against the order, dated 12th November, 1995 of District Collector. The appeal was dismissed by Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, with the following observation:-- "Counsel for the appellant did not place on record comparative statement of different lots leased out in the same village on 13-2-1995 to establish that the rates offered for the suit land were comparable to those to other similar cases...The Deputy Commissioner being Collector of the District is responsible to safeguard the State interest the impugned order is upheld and appeal is dismissed."
' The present revision petition has been filed against this order, dated 24th February, 1998 of Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that wide publicity was made prior to the auction held on 13-2-1995. Other lots of State land were also auctioned on the same day. Whereas the bids of other highest bidders were approved by District Collector but discretionary treatment was meted out to Ali Ahmad by District Collector in refusing to approve his highest bid. The order of District Collector was also challenged on the ground that it is not a speaking order and in nature is arbitrary. It is prayed that this arbitrary and discriminatory order of District Collector and subsequent order of confirmation by Commissioner be set aside.
3. Colony Assistant, Faisalabad was called to appear to assist the Court. Comments of District Collector were also obtained. District Collector in his report, dated 24th December, 1999 sated that the auction was conducted without any publicity. Three other lots were also auctioned on 13th February, 1997 and the highest bidders were allowed to obtain the leases. The facts of auction of these three lots were quite different than proceedings of auction in respect of Lot No,15.
C.A./Collector made a similar statement before this Court.
4. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. As stated in the order of Commissioner, the nature of discrimination meted out to the petitioner vis-a-vis the highest bidders of other three lots has not been clearly spelled out. Section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 reproduced for facility of reference lays down:-- "(1) The Board of Revenue subject to the general approval of the Government may grant land in colony to any person on such conditions as it thinks fit.
(2)
(3) Where such statements of conditions have been issued, the Collector may, subject to the control of Board of Revenue allot land to any person, to be held subject to such statements of conditions issued under subsection (2) of this section, as the Collector may by written order declare to be applicable to the case."
' A reading of contents of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 explicitly reveals that the Collector has the power of discretion in selecting a person to grant State land to him. Mere participation in an auction proceedings by any individual does not create a vested right in him to obtain lease of the land subjected to auction. The residents of the Chak No,10/JB made a complaint that no publicity was given in respect of auction of Lot No,15. This constituted the reason for District Collector to refuse to give approval of the bid offered by Ali Ahmad. Since All Ahmad, as stated, by participating in auction did not acquire any vested right in the land, District Collector rightly exercised his discretion in view of the complaint of the residents of the Chak and refused to grant approval of the bid. As regards discriminatory treatment, mere assertion of it, cannot establish the arbitrariness of the decision of the District Collector. The subject lot was to be auctioned for the period Kharif 1994 to Rabi 1999. Since no vested right to the petitioner was created, or has been jeopardized and the period of lease has also expired, no legal ground is available to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.