GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.--Respondent was elected to membership of a special Interest-Seat on the Zila Council, Rawalpindi on 16.1.1992. Petitioner is an elected Member on the general seat of the aforesaid Zila Council. He filed a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution in the nature of quo warranto to question the right of the respondent to hold special Interest Seat. It was stated that during five years preceding the year of election of respondent, he owned agricultural land exceeding five acres, and, therefore, did not qualify to be elected to a peasant seat of the Local Council.
2. Upon being served, respondent entered appearance through Mr. Babar Awan, Advocate and submitted his written statement. Respondent defended his right to hold the seat as peasant on the ground that out of his holding measuring 346 Kanals, 1 maria in revenue estates of Kohlian Hamid and Chakri of district Rawalpindi, he had gifted 332 kanals, 1 marlas in the above revenue estates in favour of his son by a gift-deed on 27.5.1986, keeping only 14 kanals of land with him. Original gift- deed was annexed to the written statement. Gift-deed is unregistered and is scribed in English on stamp-papers worth Rs.80. Petitioner submitted a rejoinder to the written statement and questioned the genuineness of the gift-deed. It was submitted that it was a fake document and was ante-dated to meet the requirement of law for holding the special Interest- seat. Thereupon Statement of respondent was recorded in Court. Since, there was a dispute on the genuineness of the gift-deed as also the date and time of its execution, for a proper decision of the writ petition, the matter was put into an-' issue between the parties on 16.5.1992 and the parties were called upon K* their list of witnesses and their affidavits. Hearing was adjourned to 1 taking of evidence from the parties. On the adjourned date of hearing, petitioner and his counsel attended the Court.
The respondent was present but without his counsel. Petitioner had brought his witnesses for recording their evidence but the respondent had neither summoned the witnesses nor had brought them with him. Hearing could not take place, because of the absence of the learned counsel for the respondent. The Court waited for the learned counsel till 1.30 p.m., but to no avail.
Eventually, the hearing was adjourned to today's date of hearing at 9 a.m. Adjournment was subjected to payment of Rs.200 as costs by the respondent to the petitioner. Even today, the counsel for respondent did not enter appearance. His name was shown in the cause list but it did not serve any useful purpose. Time and again, respondent sought for time to bring his counsel but he could not succeed to do the needful. Eventually, the respondent requested the Court to take up the matter in absence of his counsel and prayed for decision on merits of the petition.
3. Respondent admitted his ownership of the land measuring 346 kanals, 1 maria in villages Kohlian Hamid and Chakri. He stated that he had gifted 332 kanals, 1 maria of land to his son on 27.5.1986 which left a balance of 14 kanals of land in his ownership. Respondent stated that gift-deed was genuine. In course of hearing, Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, Advocate pointed out that in addition to the above land, respondent owned 48 kanals, 18 marlas of land in revenue -estate Kohlian Hamid, which he had sold to Ghulam Ahmad son of Khudadad vide Mutation 116, sanctioned on 28 8.1990. It was submitted by the learned counsel that even if the gift-deed is found to be genuine, on which there is a serious dispute, respondent is still disqualified to be elected as and to be a peasant member of 21a Council because, he owned land more than 40 kanals in five years preceding his election. On being questioned about sale of 48 kanals 18 marlas of land, respondent readily admitted it and stated that he was previously not aware of it, when he had earlier recorded his statement in Court. If 48 kanals, 18 marlas of land is taken into account, even after the donation of 332 kanals, 1 maria of land by him, respondent was shown to own more than 40 kanals of land during the period of five years preceding the year in which his election was held. There was no material to hold that respondent engaged himself personally in cultivation for his maintenance.
Further, it was not the case of respondent when he was a landless tenant and had contested the election on that basis. On record, therefore, respondent was not qualified to be elected as and to be a peasant member of 21a Council. His election was initially defective and continued to be invalid. Writ petition is, therefore, learned to succeed. At the end, it is appropriate to observe that the learned counsel for respondent who was appointed to aid the respondent and assist the Court also, left respondent in lurch at the opportune time and avoided the Court when it needed him for assistance to it. Learned counsel for respondent was waited for ana intimated also but the default in appearance persisted for creating a stalemate in court work. In this state of affairs, eventually the Writ Petition was taken up for hearing and final decision.
4. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. Election of respondent as peasant-member to Zila Council, Rawalpindi is set aside and is declared to be of no consequence. Since the respondent had almost conceded to his disqualification, I shall not burden him with costs of this petition. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.