Muhammad Saeed Awan And Another vs District Returning Officer, Attock And Other
This civil appeal arose from the rejection of nomination papers of the petitioners for the offices of Nazim and Naib Nazim of Union Council No. 17, Shamshabad. The core legal question was whether petitioner No. 2, Akbar Khan, was the owner of a specific property on the date of filing nomination papers (26th July, 2005) and was thus required to disclose it as an asset. The respondents produced a revenue document dated 1st August, 2005, to assert that the petitioner still owned the property. However, the Tehsildar of Attock produced the original revenue record, confirming that the property had already been transferred to the petitioner's brother on 26th July, 2005, and that the respondents' document was fake. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was not the owner of the property on the date of filing nomination papers, he was under no obligation to disclose it as an asset. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, restored the Returning Officer's order, and directed an enquiry into the forged revenue document.
- Is a candidate obligated to disclose a property in their nomination papers if the revenue record confirms the property was sold prior to the submission of the nomination papers?
- Can a court rely on original revenue records produced by a revenue official to override a contradictory document alleged to be fake?
- What action should a court take when it is established that a fake revenue document was produced before it to influence election eligibility?
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.-- ln pursuance of our order dated 15th August, 2005, Hamid Akhtar, Tehsildar Attock appeared and produced the record of Khasra No. 428, Mauza Tajak District Attock and confirmed that on 26th July, 2005, this property was entered on the name of Safdar Hussain the brother of the petitioner and it was attested on laters name on 27th July, 2005. He further confirmed revenue document dated 1st August, ^005 produced by the respondents in the Court to substantiate that property still exist on the name of Akbar Khan son of Ghulam Rabbahi is a fake document. According to him, it has not been issued by the office of the Tehsildar Attock. Be that as it may, in presence of original record, we are inclined to hold that on 26th July, 2005, when nomination papers were submitted by Akbar Khan, petitioner No. 2 he was not owner of the property as he had already sold it to his brother as per entries of Revenue Record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Akbar Khan had sold the property to his brother at minimum value with mala i.e intentions. Be that as it may, it is a fact that on 26th July, 2005, petitioner No. 2 was not owner of the property, therefore, he was not obliged to make disclosures of his assets in nomination papers.
3. Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The impugned judgment dated 8.8.2005 and order passed by the Appellate Court dated 2nd of August, 2005 are set aside and the order of Returning Officer, dated 21st August, 2005 is restored. The Returning Officer of Union Council No. 17, Shamshabad is directed to include the name of the petitioners in the list of contesting candidates for the office of Nazim and Naib Nazim.
4. The District Coordination Officer, Attock is directed to conduct an enquiry and fix responsibility that who had prepared document dated 1st August, 2005 wherein it has been indicated that Akbar Khan was owner of the property up to 1.3.2005. On completion of enquiry he would launch criminal proceedings against the person(s), responsible for the same.