1992 PLP 1959 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 8th June, 1992. MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, CJ.‑‑‑Facts concisely mentioned are, that petitioner filed nomination papers to contest election against special interest seat reserved for peasants District Council, Nasirabad. Petitioner's nomination paper was rejected by learned Deputy Commissioner Nasirabad/Returning Officer on 25‑5‑1992. Aggrieved . from said decision petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner Nasirabad‑cum- appellate Authority which too was rejected by means of order dated 30‑5‑1992. Operative portion is reproduced below:‑‑ "I have considered the facts mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner/Returning Officer, Nasirabad in his order. It is an admitted position that the appellant is son of late Sardar Moheem Khan Umrani and is brother of Mir Fateh Ali Umrani, the present Sardar of Umrani tribe who is also an M.PA. It is beyond all proportions to treat him peasant for the purpose. I therefore do not find any valid reason to disagree with the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner/Returning Officer, Nasirabad which is upheld. The appeal stands rejected and the appellant cannot contest election from the said seat of Peasant in District Council, Nasirabad. Dissatisfied from rejection of nomination papers by both the forums present Constitutional Petition has been filed. Mr. Ehsan‑ul‑Haq, learned counsel for petitioner vigorously contended that petitioner is landless person and merely cultivates lands of others. According to him nomination papers of petitioner were arbitrarily rejected by both the forums referred above. Mr. Basharatullah, Advocate for respondent No.1 vehemently opposing the petition, argued that petitioner is an arms dealer, a wealthy person possessing huge landed property, thus his candidature was rightly rejected through impugned orders. Learned Advocate‑General has confirmed that petitioner is a rich person, a licensed arms dealer and owns landed property, therefore, under law does not qualify conditions of a `Peasant'. Capt. Aftab Ahmad, Deputy Commissioner, Nasirabad pointed out that huge landed property belonging to petitioner was notionally in the name of petitioner's deceased father which by operation of law obviously vests in all legal heirs including petitioner. We have considered contentions advanced before us. `Peasant' for purposes of contesting reserved seat of special interest has been defined by section 3(39) of Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Ordinance). Said definition is reproduced below:‑ '3(39) `Peasant' means a person who is landless tenant or who for a continuous period of five years preceding the year in which the election is held is or has been owner of not more than five acres of land and engages himself personally in cultivation for. his maintenance." Bare perusal of definition reproduced above suggests that persons applying for special interest seats reserved for specified class, should fulfil requirements contained therein. It appears that ethos and object of law for providing separate seats was to ensure induction of deprived class and people, of special interest who on account of their social handicaps might face serious ordeals in getting elected as members of Local Bodies. It is obligatory for the Court to strike balance and protect rights of oppressed classes, to save the system from being eroded. We feel that Legislature desired preservation of people from special .interest for effective proper and broad, based administration of the affairs of Local Bodies. In this background it may be seen that petitioner is admittedly a licensed arms dealer, belonging to rich family of the area and undisputedly stands to acquire share in landed property, left over by his deceased father, therefore, he cannot be deemed peasant within the definition contained in section 3(39) of Balochistan Local Government Ordinance. Furthermore, words used in section 3(39) with the " .engages himself personally in cultivation for his maintenance" are very important and have been intentionally used by the legislature to connote status and position required for specified class of members. From plain reading of aforesaid words, intention of the legislature can be conveniently gathered. Real object of above‑referred words was to allocate; seat to peasants who are physically engaged in cultivation for their maintenance. The definition to our calculated opinion, exclude absentee tenants who although entered as tenants in the record of rights; yet sublet the rights of tenancy to other persons for actual or physical cultivation of lands on their behalf. Thus in our considered opinion only peasants who have no other means for their livelihood and are physicallly engaged in the cultivation of land for their maintenance are covered under the definition of peasant within the meaning of section 3(39) of the Ordinance. Any person having independent source of income other than the cultivation of land. therefore would not come within the definition of `peasant' under aforementioned clause. Petitioner's attempt to indirectly grab seat reserved for a poor cultivator, therefore, cannot be allowed to materialise by invoking discretionary remedy by way of writ petition. Both the forums below have rightly rejected nomination paper filed by petitioner. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the petition, which is consequently dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. A.A./409/0 Petition dismissed.