' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Petitioner, filed nomination papers to contest the election for a special seat reserved for the "Peasant", which have been rejected by the learned Returning Officer, vide order dated 16-9-2004, holding that the petitioner is the Director of Chohan Vegetable Ghee Mills, Burewala, and according to him, in the Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 of 439/EB, Tehsil Burewala, he also is the owner of 29 Kanals, 8 Marlas uptill 30-6-2001, apart from the land mentioned in his assets form i.e. 26 Kanals and 2 Marlas, meaning thereby that he was the owner of 55 Kanals and 10 Marlas up-till 30-6-2001, which was in his ownership within five years, preceding the filing of his candidature. Moreover, he is an ex-M.N.A., and thus, it is clear that he is not dependent upon the land mentioned in his assets. While affirming these findings, the learned Appellate Court, also held that the petitioner is an income tax assessee having N.T.N. 0895396, and therefore, the learned Appellate Court, also came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a "Peasant".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the entries showing in the Jamabandi, are not conclusive rather rebuttable; the petitioner could validly through evidence show, that such land was not owned by him, and that such property had already been sold by the petitioner before the filing of his nomination papers. It is also stated, that the petitioner only had 100 shares out of 2000 shares of Chohan Ghee Mills, and resultantly, such share holding by itself does not mean that he has ceased to be a "Peasant".
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find, that the special seat for the "Peasant", is meant to give representation to the class with small holding, but from whatever has come on the record, and taken note by the forum below, it stands established that the petitioner is a businessm an and not merely a Peasant; having a considerable status as being an ex-M.N.A.
Moreover, as has been held by the two forums below, the holding of the petitioner preceding five years, has been more than five acres, therefore, on this account too he did not qualify and his nomination papers, thus, have been rightly rejected. No case for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction has been made out. Dismissed.