2006 PLP 740 (YLR)
QURBAN ALI CHOHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER/ DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VEHARI and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 740 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | QURBAN ALI CHOHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER/ DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VEHARI and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 740 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Elections Rules, 2000 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 740 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 740 (YLR) (QURBAN ALI CHOHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER/ DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, VEHARI and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zawar Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Rejection of Nomination papers
Nomination papers filed by petitioner for a special seat reserved for "Peasant" were rejected by Returning Officer holding that petitioner was Director of a Ghee Mills, was owner of 55 Kanals, 10 Marlas and was also ex-MNA
Special seat for "Peasant" was meant to give representation to the class with small holdings, but it stood established that petitioner was a businessman and not merely a Peasant, having status as being ex-M.N.A.
Holding of petitioner, preceding five years, being more than five acres, on that account too, petitioner did not qualify to be elected as a member, his nomination papers had rightly been rejected
No case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction having been made out, petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.-- Petitioner, filed nomination papers to contest the election for a special seat reserved for the "Peasant", which have been rejected by the learned Returning Officer, vide order dated 16-9-2004, holding that the petitioner is the Director of Chohan Vegetable Ghee Mills, Burewala, and according to him, in the Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 of 4391EB, Tehsil Burewala, he also is the owner of 29 Kanals, 8 Marlas uptill 30-6-2001, apart from the land mentioned in his assets form i.e. 26 Kanals and 2 Marlas, meaning thereby that he was the owner of 55 Kanals and 10 Marlas up-till 30-6-2001, which was in his ownership within five years, preceding the filing of his candidature. Moreover, he is an ex-M.N.A., and thus, it is clear that he is not dependent upon the land mentioned in his assets. While affirming these findings, the learned Appellate Court, also held that the petitioner is an income tax assessee having N.T.N. 0895396, and therefore, the learned Appellate Court, also came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a "Peasant".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the entries showing in the Jamabandi, are not conclusive rather rebuttable; the petitioner could validly through evidence show, that such land was not owned by him, and that such property had already been sold by the petitioner before the filing of his nomination papers. It is also stated, that the petitioner only had 100 shares out of 2000 shares of Chohan Ghee Mills, and resultantly, such share holding by itself does not mean that he has ceased to be a "Peasant".
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find, that the special seat for the "Peasant", is meant to give representation to the class with small holding, but from whatever has come on the record, and taken note by the forum below, it stands established that the petitioner is a businessman and not merely a Peasant; having a considerable status as being an ex-M.N.A. Moreover, as has been held by the two forums below, the holding of the petitioner preceding five years, has been more than five acres, therefore, on this account too he did not qualify and his nomination papers, thus, have been rightly rejected. No case for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction has been made out. Dismissed. H.B.T./Q-29/L Petition dismissed.