2004 PLP 1693 (MLD)

A warrant of arrest for the recovery of Rs.4,45,026.44 (Rupees four lac forty five thousand twenty six and forty four paisas only), from the petitioner which is being urged to be the amount, allegedly collected by the petitioner as land revenues on behalf of the Government from the land-owners, for the crops of Kharif 1996 to Kharif 1997, was issued by he respondent-Tehsildar, Ahmedpur East, District Bahawalpur on 20-6-1999. To avoid the arrest, the petitioner has field this writ petition. The version of the petitioner is that he was neither a permanent Village Officer/Lambardar nor appointed as such temporarily by any order of the Tehsildar for the collection of land revenue from the landowners of Mauza Noonari, Tehsil Ahmedpur East, District Bahawalpur, so he was not defaulter in the eye of law and the recovery of above mentioned amount cannot be effected from him. It has beenaverred that Malik Aamir Yar Waran was duly appointed Lambardar, who was legally liable for the collection of land revenue and the proceedings for the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner were illegal, unlawful and without any lawful authority and be declared as such.

2. Parawise comments were called for from the respondent, who submitted in his parawise reply that petitioner was appointed and had been working as a temporary Lambardar for the crops of Rabi 1995 to Kharif 1998, had received the "Dhal Bachh" of these years and that this fact was also admitted by his brother Muhammad Rafique in an earlier Writ Petition No.3294 of 2000/BWP which was filed by him in this Court. According to respondent, as the petitioner had received the amount of Rs.4,84,855 (the detail of land revenue has been provided in Para No.3 of the reply), so he was liable to deposit it into the Government treasury. After having peculated it, he is not entitled to file the present writ for avoidance from the payment of it. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had himself admitted this fact in his statement on 12-6-2000. Accordingly, the warrant of arrest against the petitioner who was a defaulter of the above noted amount was rightly issued.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never appointed as permanent or temporary Lambardar so the issuance of warrant of arrest against him was illegal and without lawful authority. To support his version he has referred to PLD 1975 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 1 (Jam Gul Muhammad v. Government of West Pakistan through Collector, Rahimyarkhan and 2 others), PLD 1978 BJ 22 (Malik Abdul Karim v. Collector, Rahim Yar Khan and others).

4. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G has opposed the arguments of the learned counsel by reiterating the version entered byrespondent in his parawise reply and comments.Adding to the abovementioned narrative, the learned A.A.-G, has stated that the petitioner was estopped to deny his liability for payment of the Government dues, which he had received and collected from the landowners, on behalf of the Government.

5. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and have perused the record.

6. As far the citations referred to above by the learned counsel are concerned, in PLD 1975 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 1 (Jam Gul Muhammad v.. Government of West Pakistan through Collector, Rahimyar Khan and 2 others) the petitioner of that case had filed a civil suit challenging the order of Collector by which recovery of certain sum as arrears of land revenue through coercive measures was being made. In that case afterconsidering the prima facie case of the plaintiff ad interim injunction was granted to the petitioner. Even PLD 1978 BJ 22 (Malik Abdul Karim v. Collector, Rahimyar Khan and others) which was a case of an agent of Lambardar who had collected land revenue on behalf of his principal (Lambardar) had not deposited it in the Government treasury, was held to be not liable to Government, legally because he was an agent of Lambardar only who (Lambardar)) was to be considered a defaulter and not his agent. That case had originated from the suit and had reached to the stage of RSA in this Court, when the above noted order was passed. In the instant case, the controversial point for resolution is as to whether petitioner was appointed as temporary Lambardar, or was conferred power by a competent authority to collect land revenue or not? Another question would also arise as to whether the statement dated 12-6-2000 admitting the liability to pay the amount, was made by the petitioner under duress and coercion as alleged by him and what was its impact upon fhe case of the petitioner? Both parties are not in agreement on the point of appointment and upon the making of the statement allegedly recorded on 12-6-2000 by respondent, because the petitioner has now termed the statement to have been obtained from him through coercion. So, all these disputed questions of facts fall within the domain of factual inquiry, which has to be avoided to be undertaken in this jurisdiction. The factual aspect of the case, especially the facts, which are denied and require the evidence to be brought on record and proved through evidence, are not usually resolved in this writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the proper Court/competent authority or to seek and adopt the proper remedy for the redressal of his grievances. With this observation/direction the writ petition is disposed of. M.A.W./R-46/L Order accordingly.