P L D 2001 Lahore 543 (PLP)

Abdul Razzaq Raja for Respondent This habeas corpus petition was filed by Mst. Satto Mai as her son namely Muhammad Hussain, who is a loanee of the respondents was arrested on 8‑6‑2001 by the respondents.

2. This case came up for hearing on 15‑6‑2001 and the record was summoned from the respondents so as to see the genuineness of the service of the notices under sections 81 and 83 of the Land Revenue Act, upon the loanee. On 19‑6‑2001 it was thought proper that Muhammad Hussain detenu should appear before this Court and the learned counsel for the respondents undertook that the detenu would be produced before Vie Court on 20‑6‑2001 i.e. today. On Court's inquiry, learned counsel for the respondents informed that since the detenu has been lodged in the Central Jail, Multan, by the order of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, therefore, the detenu cannot be produced.

3. I have gone through the notices allegedly served upon the loanee/detenu. The date of issuance of notice has been given as 16‑5‑2001 but it has been nowhere mentioned as to when the notices were served upon the loanee/Muhammad Hussain. Only a thumb‑impression has been obtained on the back side of the notice. Neither the date of service has been mentioned nor presence of any witness has been marked. Similarly, the warrant of arrest issued under section 83(ibid) also bears certain manipulations and also bears thumb‑impression without date of service. Further perusal of the record shows that loanee Muhammad Hussain was arrested on 8‑6‑2001 for 10 days i.e. till 18‑6‑2001 and perusal of the order dated 8‑6‑2001 shows that it is a stereotype order in which name of the loanee was only filled and only a thumb‑impression of somebody has been affixed on the back side of this notice. On 18‑6‑2001, instead of releasing the loanee, he has been sent to the Central Jail, Multan, by the order of Collector, Sub‑Division, Jahania in accordance with subsection (5) of section 82 of the Land Revenue Act for maximum period of 30 days. The perusal of this order also shows that prior' to sending the loanee in Jail for 30 days, his statement was not recorded neither he was heard nor he was given any chance to produce any surety. It rather transpired that Muhammad 'Hussain loanee was never produced before the Collector, Sub‑Division Jahania, who passed a mechanical order.

4. The liberty of a person is a most valuable right guaranteed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is to be jealously guarded. After perusal‑of the relevant papers, I am of the considered view that respondents have violated the provisions of law and the notices as envisaged by section 81 and the warrants issued under subsection (5) of section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, have been issued mechanically only to hoodwink the spirit of law.

5. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Sub‑Division, Jahania, whereby he while exercising his powers under subsection (5) of section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, confined Muhammad Hussain, loanee, in Jail for 30 days, starting from 18‑6‑2001. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Multan, is directed to release Muhammad Hussain son of Muhammad Hayat, loanee/detenu forthwith, if not requited in any other case.

6. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./S‑268/L Petition accepted.