NAZIR AHMAD Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GENERAL)

ABDUL SH.4KURUL SALAM, J.‑‑ Petitioner filed nomination papers for election to special interest seat "peasant". Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 objected thereto. Petitioner's nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer on 22‑10‑1983 and his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 25‑10‑1983. He filed the above titled Constitutional petition. A learned Division Bench admitted the petition and directed that "the petitioner's name will be entered in the list of validly nominated candidates and he is allowed to contest the A election. The result of the election will be subject to the decision of this writ petition". This is vide order dated 26‑10‑1983.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavits of the aforesaid two respondents who had objected to his nomination papers wherein they have stated that they have no objection to the acceptance of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the petitioner was a land less tenant of land 4 Kanals and 17 Marlas and the fact that he was also a partner in a brick‑kiln would not disentitle him from contesting the election. He has referred to the definition clause (xxvii) of section 3 of the Punjab Local' Government Ordinance, 1979 as amended upto date which reads as follows:

"Peasant" mean a person who is a land‑less tenant or who during the period of five years preceding the car in which the election is held, has en the owner of not more than eve acres of land and engages himself personally in the cultivation for his maintenance." ‑

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a land less tenant and the fact that he does not personally engages himself in cultivation for his maintenance is no bar because this condition is attached to the latter portion of the above provision. The definition clause is bifurcated by the use of the word `or' in between the landless tenant and the other one.

4. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner has since been elected.

5. In view of the earlier order of the Court dated 26‑10‑1983 and the fact that the petitioner has since been elected and if anybody has any objection regarding his nomination papers, he can challenge the election in appropriate proceedings and also that nobody appears to oppose the petition, the same is allowed. But the petitioner shall bear his own costs.

M.Y.H./2737/L Petition allowed.