1991 PLP 1147 (MLD)

Pervaiz Akhtar for Appellant. Sheikh Abdul Maajid for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th February, 1991. Qaim Khan was village headman of revenue estate Hamlanian in Tehsil Okara. He collected land revenue from the land-owners but did not credit it in the treasury. A sum of Rs.16,166.76 was found due from him. The Collector issued a writ of demand for recovering the above amount as arrears of land revenue from him. In course of recovery proceedings, land belonging to defaulter Lambardar was put to attachment. This act caused a grievance to him and he instituted a civil suit against the Government for removal of attachment and prohibiting the recovery of the above-said amount as arrears of land revenue. Government contested the suit and asserted their right to recover the disputed amount from the defaulter Lambardar as arrears of land revenue. It was stated by them that section 113 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 was a bar to the filing of the suit and in terms of section 158 of the same Act, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. On 13-9-19167, the trial Court settled following issues:-- (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of section 78 of the Land Revenue Act? (2) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this suit in view of section 158 of the Land Revenue Act? (3) Whether the impugned order of the Collector dated 20-12-1966 is illegal, void and inoperative upon the plaintiff's rights for the reasons given in the plaint? (4) Relief. Parties gave evidence in support of their varying versions. Upon its examination, the trial Court held that without first deposit of the amount in dispute as required by section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 suit could not be filed; that the claim raised in the suit was barred from jurisdiction of the Civil Court; that the amount in dispute was recoverable as arrears of land revenue and consequently dismissed the suit on 12-9-1968. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, lower appellate Court endorsed and affirmed the conclusions of the trial Court. Against the agreed judgments, a second appeal was filed in this Court. It was admitted on 17-3-1969 to examine whether the amount in question was recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Two points were taken in support of the appeal. First point was that the appellant failed to collect land revenue from some of the land-owners because of existing animosity between them and the Revenue Officer did not assist him in recovering the land revenue, despite application addressed to him about the conduct of recalcitrant land-owners and the second point was that coercive process could not be employed for effecting recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue from the appellant. Second point was much pressed on the attention of the Court. It was vehemently argued that under section 97 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, a defaulter. Lambardar could not be proceeded against to recover the amount of revenue collected by him and not credited in the Government treasury as arrears of land revenue. It was argued that if a Lambardar failed to deposit the recovered amount of land revenue in the treasury, only legal remedy available to the authorities was to institute a civil suit for its recovery and definition of `defaulter' in section 3(8) of the Land Revenue Act did not cover the case of a Lambardar who collected revenue from the land-owners and failed to deposit it. Courts below are agreed that the appellant collected the land revenue but did not deposit it in the treasury. This is a finding on a point of fact and rested on sound material. Therefore, it could not be reviewed and upset in second appeal. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellant did not show much enthusiasm about it and appeared to be luke-warm in urging that the finding was incorrect. On record, there was no evidence to prove that some or any of the land-owners had failed to pay their share of land revenue to the appellant. Also, appellant failed to disclose the identity of defaulters. Defence evidence revealed that the appellant addressed applications to the Tehsildar for a request to liquidate his outstanding liability to pay the revenue-arrears, in instalments. Original applications are marked Exts.Dl and D2 on record. The appellant vainly attempted to deny the correctness of these applications but his assertion was wholly untrue. Therefore, the contention that the appellant did not receive land revenue from some of the land-owners in his beat, and, therefore, was not liable to pay or deposit the amount in question is absolutely without substance. Even otherwise, it did not materially impinge on his liability to pay the land revenue assessed on the lands in his patti. Definition of the term `defaulter' in section 3(8) of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 was wide enough to embrace the case of Lambardar receiving revenue from land-owners and not handing it over to the Government. Decisions arrived at in Said Ahmad v. Emperor A I R 1937 Pesh. 35, Advocate-General, N: W.F.P v. Mirajan Shah Mir Azam A I R 1938 Pesh. 25, and, to an extent, Fazal Muhammad and others v. Collector, Lyallpur District and another P L D 1963 (W.P.) Lah. 485 clearly supported the above view point. It is true that like the new provision in clause (b) of section 113 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, section 97 of the old Land Revenue Act did not contain a separate express provision to cover the case of a defaulter Lambardar but it did not signify that a Lambardar whose duty it was to collect the revenue from the land-owners and pay it in the treasury could appropriate it to his self-use at the risk of its recovery through a civil suit only. There is no doubt about the liability of the appellant to pay the amount in question as arrears of land revenue which ` he had received from the land-owners and if there was any, the same is set at rest by clause (b) of section 113 of the present Land Revenue Act, 1967 which clearly applied to his case. Decision in Muhammad Anwar Khan v. The Punjab Province (now West Pakistani. Province) P L D 1971 Lah. 989 materially assists the point. For the foregoing discussion, appeal has no substance. It is dismissed with costs. Records be returned. AA./Q-43/L Appeal dismissed.