Tareen assets case: Define ‘land holding’, SC asks lawyers

Court notes ambiguity in definition of the term; experts believe Panama ruling may come back to haunt Tareen

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has sought legal assistance from the lawyers representing Hanif Abbasi and Jahangir Tareen – the petitioner and the respondent respectively – on the definition of “land holding”.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, resumed the hearing of Abbasi’s petition seeking the disqualification of Tareen, as well as Imran Khan, as members of the National Assembly over allegations of concealing their sources of income.

The bench questioned why Tareen did not disclose the income from 18,566 acres of leased land in his nomination papers for the 2013 general elections. Tareen did not win a seat in those elections.

“What is the meaning of land holding,” the chief justice asked Tareen’s counsel. The bench also asked why he had not paid agriculture taxes on the income generated from the leased land.



Legal experts believe Tareen might face trouble in view of the SC’s July 28 verdict in the Panamagate case – wherein it was held that an entitled salary or unwithdrawn receivable may be considered an asset – as the same principle may be applied in Tareen’s case. However, one point in his favour is that he did not win a seat in the 2013 general elections.

Responding to the court, Sikandar Bashir Mohmand, counsel for Tareen, submitted that his client disclosed agriculture income from his own land, adding that there is a requirement to only disclose income from landing holdings in the nomination papers.

Likewise, he contended that he had shown complete agriculture income before the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), adding that the FBR form was also attached with his nomination papers. The counsel said that nobody raised this issue before the returning officer at that time.



Upon this, the bench asked the counsel for the petitioner to explain how Tareen could be disqualified on the basis of concealment of income from leased land in his nomination papers. It also asked when there is no clarity on the definition of “land holding”, how they can expect Tareen to clearly understand the same where it is mentioned in the nomination papers.

The counsel stated that the high court itself held that entries or columns in the nomination forms pertaining to the disclosure of agriculture income tax were ambiguous, and the benefit of the doubt should, therefore, go in favour of contesting candidates.

Meanwhile, the counsel requested the bench not to intervene in tax issues as these were still pending before different forums, adding that despite knowing this fact, the petitioner deliberately brought that matter before the apex court for a decision.

“If you want to adjudicate matters related to taxes, then you should give me appropriate notice present those arguments,” he said.

Tareen’s counsel also referred to a precedent judgment wherein the SC ruled that it could not examine the tax history of any individual under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.



However, the bench told him that “the law does not deter the top court from interpreting the article”.

The CJP then referred the counsel to Justice Asif Saeed Khosa’s order in the Panama Papers case wherein it was held that the SC can decide on matters pending in different forums.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial then told the lawyer that the petitioner’s case is simply that Tareen did not declare the leased land and points out discrepancies in his income. “We are looking into the disclosure of your income before the Election Commission of Pakistan,” he added.

Justice Faisal Arab observed that Tareen could not claim to have paid taxes on the land owned by him. The counsel contended that there is no provision regarding the payment of taxes on leased land, adding that double taxation is prohibited.

The court adjourned the hearing till Thursday (today).