Khaleefa Muhammad Munawar Butt And Another vs Hafiz Muhammad Jamil Nasir And Other
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court which had accepted a writ petition filed against them. Petitioner No. 2 failed to declare an amount of Rs. 13,00,000 received as part payment for the sale of a property in his nomination papers. The core legal question was whether a candidate is under an obligation to disclose advance payments received for the sale of property standing in their own name in the nomination papers' asset declaration column. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was the owner of the property and entered into the agreement to sell in his own right, he was legally bound to declare the received amount as his asset. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissed the petition, and declined to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that assets and part-payments received on account of property owned and disposed of by a candidate in their own right must be fully disclosed in nomination paper declarations.
- Whether a candidate is obliged to disclose part-payments received under an agreement to sell in the asset declaration column of nomination papers?
- Does a property owner entering into an agreement to sell in their own right need to declare advance sale consideration as an asset?
- Whether failure to declare received amounts in nomination papers warrants the acceptance of a writ petition against the candidate?
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.- Admittedly petitioner No. 2 failed to declare amount of Rs.
13.0. 000/- received by him as a part payment of sale consideration of his property in pursuance of agreement dated 28th March, 2005 out of which an amount of Rs. 8.0. 000/- was paid at the time of execution whereas Rs. 5.0. 000/- were paid to him on 28th June, 2005 to be his assets in nomination papers at the time when the period for completion of sale was extended.
2. Learned counsel contended that petitioner had no obligation to disclose receipt of amount in the column of nomination paper meant for declaration of assets because the property was owned by his father.
3. We are not inclined to agree with his contention because admittedly property stands in the name of the petitioner and he himself entered into an agreement to sell the same not as attorney of his father but in his own rights. Besides till the completion of the sale petitioner continued to be the owner of the property. Therefore, it was incumbent upon him to have shown receipt of Rs. 13.0.
000/- as his assertion in the column of nomination papers.
4. Thus for the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that High Court had rightly accepted the writ petition filed by respondent No. '1, as such no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. Therefore, leave to appeal is declined and petition dismissed.