2013 PLP 1623 (CLC)

On the objections of Syed Abid Hussain Iman, Manzoor Ali Khan and Sarfraz Ahmad Bhatti etc. the nomination papers filed by the appellant for Constituency NA-87 Chiniot-cum-Jhang were rejected by the learned Returning Officer vide order dated 4-4-2013 on the ground that the appellant was a defaulter with regard to payment of water charges of the water used from canal for irrigation purpose of his land. Today, again when respondent No.4, one of the objectors, was represented through his learned counsel, the same objections were reiterated before us with an addition that the holdings of the appellant are more than 50 acres of land and as such he was liable to be taxed under the Punjab Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1997 (Act I of 1997).

2. In order to demonstrate as to the holdings of the appellant less than what could have been termed as land liable to be taxed, the learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the detail of the landed property as has been disclosed in the nomination papers by the appellant with a plea that it does not exceed the limit of the holdings which can be held liable to be taxed.

3. With regard to the objection as to the default in payment of water charges from the appellant's side, as per the statement showing the payment of water charges/Tawan giving break of payments of water charges for both of the crops i.e. Khareef and Rabi for the years 2008 and 2012 and also the report of Revenue authorities dated 3-4-2013 that till the crop Khareef 2012, there is no outstanding amount against the appellant in the head of water charges with regard to canal water.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed on the record a copy of restraint order issued by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sargodha in a suit which was filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the excessive levy of water charges whereby the learned Civil Court cognizant of the matter ordered to maintain the status quo with regard to the prayer of the appellant to stop the defendant authorities viz. the District Collector and the Canal authorities from claiming and getting any disputed amount recovered against water charges.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Law Officer, respondent No.4 and also gone through the record.

6. A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as a Member of the Parliament if he or his spouse or any of his dependants has defaulted in payment of water charges in excess of Rs.10,000/- for over six months at the time of filing of his nomination papers. As noted herein above on the day of nomination papers and also on the day of scrutiny, the appellant was not a defaulter with regard to water charges and as such no disqualification can be attached with the appellant on account of the alleged non-payment of water charges at the time of filing of his nomination papers. The findings of the learned Returning Officer as such are erroneous and a result of illegality. The order passed by the learned Returning Officer is thus not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the nomination papers filed by the appellant are accepted. A.G./F-20/L Appeal allowed.