' MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.-The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner, Muhammad Anwar, and respondent No, 1, Muhammad Siddique, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, contested election to the special seat reserved for peasants in Union Council No, 104, Chak No, 169/Murad, Tehsi! Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. The petitioner secured more votes than the respondent and, therefore, the former was declared to have been elected. His election was challenged by the respondent by means of an election petition. It was urged by respondent that the petitioner was not a peasant and was, therefore, not qualified to contest the election. His plea had found favour with the Election Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner), Bahawalnagar. As a result, the election petition was accepted by the learned Tribunal by means of order, dated the 7th December, 1983, the petitioner was unseated and the respondent was declared to have been elected against the special seat. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The word "peasant" has been defined in clause (xxvii) of section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance, as follows :- "(xxvii) 'peasant' means a person who is a landless tenant or who during the period of five years preceding the year in which the election is held, has been the owner of not more than five acres of land and engages himself personally in cultivation for his maintenance."
' The point canvassed by the respondent was that the petitioner was owner of more than five Acres of land and could, therefore, not be treated as a peasant. According to the respondent, the petitioner owned 40 kanals 5 marlas and 8k sarsais of land. The break up of this area of land, as given in the impugned order, is as follows :- Khata No, 18/29 of Chak No, 174/Murad ... 8} Sarsais ' Khata No, 50/40 of Chak No, 167/Murad ... 5 Marlas Khata No, 56/57 of Chak No, 167/Murad ... 40 Kanals ' As indicated above, it was held by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner was owner of the said land and was, therefore, not a peasant within the meanings of clause (xxvii) of section 3 of the said Ordinance.
3. Assailing the finding of the learned Tribunal, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 8i sarsais of his land in Chak No, 174/Murad, the petitioner had built a shop and on 5 marlas of land in Khata No, 50/40 in Chak No, 167/Murad he had raised a house and thus the said two pieces of tend could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the total area of land owned by the petitioner. The argument proceeds that the remaining land owned by the petitioner measured 40 kanals only which was not in excess of the ceiling of 5 Acres mentioned in the definition of the word "peasant". Learned counsel laid great stress on the word "cultivation" appearing in the said definition and pleaded that since the land underneath the shop and the house was not actually cultivated by the petitioner it could not be taken into account while deciding the question whether he was a peasant as envisaged by clause (xxvii) of section 3 of the said Ordinance.
4. The word "land" has been defined in clause (xv) of section 3 of the said Ordinance as under :- "land' includes land which is being built up or is built up or is covered with water or is under cultivation or is fallow."
According to this definition, the land which is built up is also land. Thus, the petitioner's land bearing the shop and the house is land for the purpose of clause (xxvii) of section 3 of the said Ordinance.
The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the land to which clause (xxvii) applies is one the land which is actually under cultivation is negated by the definition o the word "land" as given in clause (xv). According to that definition eve the land which is covered with water or is fallow is also to be treated as land. By using the word "and engages himself personally in cultivation for his maintenance" in clause (xxvii) the Legislature simply wanted to convey that the occupation of a person who claims to be a peasant should b in cultivation and it was not their intention to lay down that if such person did not actually cultivate any part of the land belonging to him the same shall be excluded from consideration while calculating the total land owned by him. If the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and the land which is built up is not taken into account it will amount amending the definition of the word "land" which cannot be possibly don by this Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not cultivator by profession nor it was maintained by his learned counsel that the Ian covered by the shop and the house was not shown as land in the revenue record. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned counsel that the said land is not land within the meanings of clause (xxvii).
5. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.