' The petitioner was a candidate for election to Cantonment Board Okara District Sahiwal from a peasant's seat. There were two candidates for the election. However, the nomination papers of both the candidates were rejected by the Returning Officer, and no election has taken place so far.
The petitioner has challenged the order of the Returning Officer dated 11th February, 1980, Whereby his nomination papers were rejected, and has prayed that the Returning Officer be directed to declare the petitioner as having been elected unopposed. The Returning Officer who is the only respondent in this case, has opposed this writ petition and has submitted a written statement. He has also appended a copy of the impugned order with his written statement in which it is stated that the, petitioner's nomination papers are rejected because he is not the owner of the land which he is cultivating in the Cantonment Board area, and that the land which he owns is in Faisalabad.
Apparently the order is based on the assumption that a candidate for a seat of peasants had to be a self-cultivator, owning less than five acres of land within the Cantonment area. Learned, counsel for the petitioner questions the validity of this assumption.
2. The decision of this case hinges on the question whether the. Petitioner could be regarded as being a peasant. The word "peasant" is defined in section 2 (XX VII-a) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, as amended by Ordinance XLIV of 1979, as follows "Peasant means a person who owns agricultural land not exceeding 5 acres and engages himself personally in cultivation of land."
' Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that according to the above definition a peasant is one who owns land within the Cantonment area, measuring less than 5 acres, and which he cultivates himself. He urges that the requirement of owning land within the Cantonment area is inferable from the necessity of a member representing peasants being a permanent resident of the area; and that the requirement of being a self-cultivator is inferable from the language of the definition clause.
3. There is no merit in any of these contentions. There is no law which requires expressly or by necessary implication, any member to be a permanent resident within a Cantonment area. A plain reading of the definition clause shows that primarily a peasant is a person who engages himself personally in cultivation of land. It is immaterial whether he cultivates his own land or that of someone else, so long as the area he owns is less than 5 acres. There is nothing in the definition which requires that a peasant must own land within the cantonment area from where he proposes to contest the election. If the requirement of owning less than 5 acres of land is to be regarded as relateable only to the land within the Cantonment area, then it would mean that a person owning more than 5 acres elsewhere would fall within the definition of peasant for purposes of the Cantonment area. A plain reading of the definition shows that it cannot be so interpreted. If a person is a peasant he must be regarded as being so in all areas of the Punjab. I therefore hold that to be a peasant it is not necessary to own any land within the Cantonment area, nor is one required to cultivate his own land. All that is necessary is that one should be engaged personally in cultivation, and must not own more than 5 acres of land anywhere. However every peasant in the Punjab is not qualified to contest elections for a peasant's seat from every cantonment. The necessary qualification in this behalf is prescribed in ,4 section 15-B of the Cantonments Act, 1924, which requires that the name of every candidate for election must appear for the time being on the electoral roll of the ward from which he seeks election. Since a member representing peasants is not elected from any particular ward, it is enough in his case that his name appears for the time being on the electoral roll of any of the wards of the Board. The respondent therefore had no lawful authority to disqualify the petitioner from being a candidate on the grounds that are mentioned in the impugned order. However, the question whether the petitioner owns less than 5 acres of land is yet to be determined.
4. In view of the above discussion I accept this writ petition and declare that the order passed by the respondent on 11th February, 1980, rejecting the petitioner's nomination papers, is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The effect of this order will be that the respondent will now determine the question of validity of the petitioner's candidature in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. In view of the circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.