Find a Lawyer

(a) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑--

---S. 3(1)(xxvii) [as amended by Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1983)]‑"Peasant", definition‑Person earning his livelihood from commission agent's business as well‑Such person, held, was not covered by definition of "peasant".‑[Words and phrases].

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑--

‑‑‑ Art. 185‑Punjab Local Government‑ Ordinance (VI of 1979),---S. 3(1)(xxvii) [as amended by Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1983)]‑‑Appraisal of evidence by Supreme Court No infirmity legal or otherwise pointed out Supreme Court declined to re‑appraise evidence.

(c) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑

‑‑‑ S. 3(1)(xxvii) [as amended by Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XV of 1983)]‑"Peasant", definition --Person not engaged himself personally in cultivation for five years continuously before year of election‑Cultivation meant for candidate's maintenance has to be continuous‑‑Requirement of can didate's maintenance being dependent upon cultivation, held, was condition precedent for his being declared as a peasant and that would not be so unless he cultivated land continuously for period prescribed.‑[Words and phrases].

Sh. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Walayat Umar Chaudhry Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : ‑11th February, 1986.

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑

Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 19‑1‑1986, of the Lahore nigh Court ; where by a Constitutional petition arising out of an election to District Coun cil peasant seat, was dismissed.

The petitioner Ahmad Bakhsh and respondent No. 2 Muhammad Sharif contested the election. While the petitioner obtained 14 votes, the respondent obtained 10 votes, and thus the petitioner was declared and notified as elected. On respondent's election petition, the learned Election Tribunal held inquiry, recorded voluminous evidence from both sides and declared petitioner's election on the peasant seat illegal and void because he did not come within the definition of the "peasant". The respondent's prayer that he should be declared as successful candi date was, however, rejected.

The petitioner then moved a constitutional petition in the High Court mainly challenging the findings of the Tribunal with regard to his status, peasant or otherwise.

The definition of the peasant for purpose of the disputed election as contained in the amended law is reproduced below:

" 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 mainten ance".

(Section 3(1), clause (xxvii): Punjab Local Government (Second Amendment) Ordinance No. (XV of 1983)).

The Election Tribunal found that the petitioner was a commission agent and also that be did not till the land for his maintenance continuously for five years before the disputed election. The High Court on contest being raised on both the questions held as follows :‑

It is contended that although the petitioner has been shown as licensee Commission Agent but he has been proved to be a tiller of land also. It is contended that copy of Khasra Girdawari is admissible in evidence without formal proof and, therefore, non‑appearance of Muhammad Akram the petitioner's landlord as a witness did not weaken the claim of the petitioner that he is a tenant (but not landless). We have asked the learned counsel, if the Khasra Girdawari relied upon by him contained entries to the effect that the petitioner tilled the land for continuous five years prior to the year of his election but he replied in the negative ..According to the definition only such a tiller of land is qualified to contest for Peasant's seat' who tills the land with his own labour and fully keeps his maintenance on this profes sion. It is not so in the case of the petitioner. He earns his liveli hood from other source as Commission Agent's business as well. Consequently, we find that the learned Election Tribunal has rightly found the petitioner as not covered by the definition of peasant' and deseated him."

Learned counsel reiterated the arguments raised before the High Court and wanted us to reappraise the evidence led before the Election Tribunal.

After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit case for reappraisal of the evidence. No infirmity, legal or otherwise, has been pointed out in so far as this aspect of the case is concerned. We accord ingly hold that the petitioner was a licensee Commission Agent and uphold the finding of the High Court that he earns his livelihood from the other source namely, the Commission Agent's business as well.

Regarding the second alternative of qualification similarly, we accept the finding that the petitioner did not engage himself personally in cultivation for five years continuously before the year of election. Learned counsel, however, vehemently contended that the High Court committed an error in introducing the concept of continuous cultivation while the definition of peasant' does not contain any such condition.

We do not agree with him. The language used in the definition is as such that the cultivation meant for a candidate's "maintenance" has to be continuous. This requirement of the candidate's maintenance being dependent upon cultivation, is a condition precedent for his being declared as a peasant and it would not be so unless he cultivates the lance continuously for the period prescribed in the definition. We, therefore affirm the view taken by the High Court in this behalf as well.

None of the arguments raised by the learned counsel has any force. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.

M.B.A. Leave to appeal refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.