1996 PLP 1954 (CLC)

6. After the suit of Sarbarah Lambardars was decreed, the Revenue Authorities, on the basis of observations made by the Court in its judgment in the proceedings, wherein the writ petitioner was not impleaded as a party, made a demand of Rs.5,63,974.52 from the petitioner as the alleged amount of arrears of land revenue. The petitioner Lambardar who was leader of the opposition at the relevant time, and also his relatives, were allegedly hounded at the instance of the Political Government in power and the present petition was filed seeking a declaration that the demand of alleged arrears of Land Revenue was without lawful authority and for a direction to respondents Nos.1 to 5 not to make any demand of the said amount from the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

7. The official respondents. filed the parawise written statements. Facts relating to the suit were admitted. It was also admitted by respondents as in the Civil Court that Sarbarah Lambardars did furnish the lists of defaulting owners of the estates but for the first time qualified that same was not well in time due to which action for recovery of Government dues was not taken against the defaulters.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Advocate‑General, Punjab and have given my anxious consideration to the relevant law involved.

9. The learned Advocate‑General, Punjab made a conditional admission. He stated that proper procedure was not adopted while making a demand against the petitioner of "arrears of Land Revenue" under Chapter VIII of W.P. Land Revenue Act, 1967 and Rules framed there under. He, however, maintained that the petitioner was liable to pay if, on proper proceedings, Land Revenue was found to be in arrears. He further contended that Sarbarah Lambardars were the agents of the petitioner and the petitioner was liable to pay the same in case any amount was determined in view of orders dated 6‑6‑1979. This was no concession made by the learned Advocate‑General. The law was very clearly laid down in Abdul Latif v. Government of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1962 SC 384) and Muhammad Akbar Cheema v. Province of West Pakistan and another (1984 SCMR 1047). The learned Advocate‑General was evasive on the real question in issue and that related to the liabilities/obligations and rights of a Lambardar under Act XVII of 1967 and Rules framed there under. It is the law which is to take, its course and not the whims of Revenue Officers. In case of political personages, the Courts are to take extra care to ensure that mala fides IA were not perpetuated.

10. Earlier to the enforcement of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) there was in force Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Pb. Act XVII of 1887) which was repealed under section 184(2) of Act (XVII of 1967) as mentioned in Part Two of the Schedule. The Land Revenue Rules framed under Act XVII of 1887 were also replaced by West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 which were framed under the powers conferred subject to section 183 of Act XVII of 1967. These Rules came into force w.e.f. 13‑7‑1968 and included the Rules regulating the appointment etc. of village officers as framed by Board of Revenue under section 36 of Act XVII of 1967.

11. Chapter IX of Act XVII of 1967 relates to recovery of other demands by Revenue Officer and section 113 thereof reads as under:‑‑ "

113. Recovery of certain arrears through Revenue officers instead of by suit.‑‑When a village officer required by the rules under section 36 to collect any land revenue or sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue‑‑ (a) satisfies a Revenue Officer that the revenue or the sum has fallen due and has not been paid to him, or (b) has collected such revenue or sum, but has not credited the same to Government in the matter provided in the rules. The Revenue Officer may, subject to rules which the Board of Revenue may, make in this behalf, recover such revenue or sum, from the person from whom it is due, or the Village Officer by whom it was collected, as the case may be, as arrears of land revenue. "

12. It has been admitted by respondents Nos. l to 5 that Sarbarah Lambardars did make applications giving the names and particulars of the defaulters to the Revenue Officers. Such applications were required to be made under Rule 56 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 which reads as under: ‑‑ "

56. Application by Headmen for recovery of arrears from defaulters.‑ When headman wants to make recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue under section 113, he shall make an application to the Revenue Officer stating therein‑‑ (a) the name and description of the defaulter; (b) the arrear of which recovery is desired; (c) the circumstances which have made the application necessary. (2) Any number of defaulters residing in the same estate may, at the discretion of the Revenue Officer, to whom the application is made, be included in the same application, but the arrear due from each defaulter shall be separately specified." Rule 56 relates to Part VII of the Rules which relates to recovery of Land Revenue. After the receipt of an application under Rule 56 (supra) it was mandatory for the Revenue Officer under Rule 57 to fix a date for hearing of the case and to serve a notice of demand on the defaulters together with a notice requiring him to appear on the date so fixed, if the demand has not, in the meantime been paid. Rules 58 and 59 provide for the procedure of recovery of arrears of land revenue from the defaulters as reported by a Lambardar/Sarbarah Lambardar of the estate under Rule 56.

13. In the present case the respondents Nos.l to 5 have unanimously admitted that applications were made to them by Sarbarah Lambardars. On admission by the Revenue Officers that such applications were made and lists were provided to them, the onus then heavily lay on such Officers to prove their plea that such lists were incomplete or were not provided well in time. The respondents Nos.l to 5 have failed to bring on record any proof whatsoever which could show that such applications and list of defaulters were not supplied or the reason of their not proceeding in accordance with Rules. No attempt a whatsoever was made to show the reason for their inaction. I have, therefore, all the reasons to presume that Revenue Officers were supplied the information under Rule 56 and they failed to proceed further in accordance with Rules 57 to 60 of Rules, 1968. These Rules were framed under a Statute and had the force of law. The word "shall" was used for the Revenue Officer, to proceed in a certain manner as provided in Rule 57 (supra) which made it mandatory for them to proceed in accordance therewith. The respondents Nos. l to 5 having admitted the receipt of information under Rule 56 (supra) had failed to do their statutory duties and were out to recover the alleged arrears from the petitioner which they were not required to do under the Rules, having the force of law for the time being in force. '

14. In view of what has been discussed above the writ petition is accepted. The impugned demand against the petitioner for payment of alleged arrears of Land Revenue is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Respondents Nos. l to 5 are further directed not to cause the recovery of the amount reported to them Linder Rule 56 (supra), from the petitioner. The respondents Nos. l to 5 are also directed to proceed further in recovery of the arrears of Land Revenue, if there by any, only in accordance with Rules 57 to 60 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968.

15. As the question relating to interpretation of legal provisions, was involved, there shall be no order as to costs. A.A./F‑18/L Petition accepted.