The petitioners feel aggrieved of the acceptance of nomination papers filed by respondent No.2 for contesting elections of a seat reserved for peasants (female) in U.C. No.20 (Doburji Araian, Sialkot)- The objection precisely is that the said respondent does not fall within the definition of the term "peasant" contained in section 2(10) of PLGEC, 2000
2. Miss Gulzar Butt, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said respondent No.2 neither is nor claims to be a farm worker whereas she had not declared any land in her declaration of assets; that when the petitioners objected she proceeded to file documents Annexures "C" and "D"; whereas Annexure "C" (Register Haqdaran Zamin) records Abdur Razzak and others in the ownership column and respondent No.2 is recorded in the column of possession as a co-sharer; in Annexure "D" she is recorded to be owner of the same land. According to learned counsel Khasra Girdawari Annexure "E" and Register Haqdaran Zamin (Annexure "F") are the correct copies arid according to these the said land is owned as well as possessed by Abdur Razzak as a co-sharer.
Learned counsel further contends with reference to the case of Ahmad Bakhsh v. The District Judge/Election Tribunal and others PLD 1986 SC 223 that respondent No.2 is not a person dependant upon the said land for her subsistence as would be evident from her declaration of assets. Also relies on the case of Anwar A.I Cheema v. Muhammad Aslam PLD 1984 Journal 96. Mr. Amir Khan Raja, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has taken the position that the documents (Annexures "C" and "D "),were not filed by his client. He has placed on record a photo copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin which is marked as Mark "I" which shows his client to be owner of 8 Kanals of land. According to the learned counsel this teas the document that was filed with the papers. He, however, admits as correct \the entries in the declaration form certified copy whereof is present at page 13 of the paper book.
3. I have examined the copies of record and documents appended with this writ petition. In view of the nature of allegations made by the petitioners in the matter of alleged fabrication of documents by the said respondent, I am not inclined to indulge in the same in this writ petition. However, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the contents of the declaration of assets, admitted to be correct by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, has force.
According to this declaration respondent No.2 has declared that she is owner of two plots and is a share--holder in Mehran Filling Station. The value of this latter property is declared to be Rs.11,62,175.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has placed a fax copy of the partnership deed, whereby the said respondent alongwith her other partners set up the partnership business in the name and style of Mehran Filling Station. There are ten partners with equal shares. Learned counsel, however, has come out with the plea that his client hereby denounces her share in the said filling station.
Learned counsel refers to a D.B. Judgment of this Court in the case of M. Saifullah Khan v.
Muhammad Afzal and 2 others PLD 1982 Lah. 77 to urge that his client can denounce the ownership of the said shares. I have examined the judgment and I find that the same is of no help to the respondent No.2. In the said case the concerned candidate had declared the property that had devolved upon him through inheritance. This was declared in the declaration of assets. It was urged on his behalf that he wants to renounce the same, as he is compelled to represent the interest of poor peasants. The argument was rejected in the following terms by their Lordships in para.9 of the report at page 82:-- "The fact that respondent No. l did not renounce his interest in his father's inheritance by deed, before filing the declaration of assets and liabilities, but, on the contrary, received his inheritance and filed the declaration showing the accretion, clearly shows that respondent No. l had no sympathy for the cause of the peasant proprietors and by his conduct waived his right to represent them."
"This requirement of the candidate's maintenance being dependant upon cultivation, is a condition precedent for his being declared as a peasant."
4. For all that has been discussed above this writ, petition is allowed. The impugned orders accepting the nomination forms of respondent No.2 are declared to be without lawful authority and are set aside. No orders as to costs.