Khaleefa MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR BUTT and another vs Hafiz MUHAMMD JAMIL NASIR and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court which accepted a writ petition against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a candidate was legally obligated to disclose the receipt of part payment of sale consideration for a property in the assets declaration column of nomination papers, even when the property in question belonged to the petitioner himself and not his father as claimed. The Supreme Court held that since the property stood in the name of the petitioner and he entered into the agreement to sell in his own right as the owner, he remained the owner until the completion of the sale and was thus bound to declare the received amount of Rs. 13,00,000 as his assets in the nomination papers. The Court laid down the principle that a property owner who enters into an agreement to sell in their own capacity must disclose any part payments received toward the sale consideration in their nomination paper asset declarations, and leave to appeal was accordingly declined.
- Whether a candidate is legally required to disclose part payments received under an agreement to sell in the asset declaration column of nomination papers?
- Does a property owner who enters into an agreement to sell in their own right remain the owner for asset disclosure purposes until the sale is completed?
- Whether failure to declare amounts received as part payment of sale consideration in nomination papers justifies 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,13,00,000 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,8,00,000 was paid at the time of execution whereas Rs,5,00,000 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,13,00,000 as his assets 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 areal is declined and .
Leave declined.
Cited by 8 cases
- Nida Khuhro vs Moazzam Ali Khan and others 2019 P.S.C. 1573, 2019 SCMR 1684, 2019 SCP 308
- Malik Taj Ahmad vs Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Member of Provincial 2018 PLD Lahore 723, 2018 LHC 1367
- Malik TAJ AHMAD vs Malik MUHAMMAD NAWAZ, MEMBER OF PROVINCIAL 2018 PLD Lahore 723
- IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI Versus MIAN MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN/MEMBER NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, PRIME MINISTER'S HOUSE, ISLAMABAD 2017 PLD 265
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD CHATTA Versus IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHEEMA 2016 SCMR 763
- Muhammad Anwar Khan and another vs Khalid Mahmood and others 2013 C.L.R. 1060
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN and another vs KHALID MAHMOOD and others 2015 MLD 1090
- Taj Ahmad vs Muhammad Nawaz, Member of Provincial Assembly (MPA), Punjab & others 2019 KLR Civil Cases 88