1982 PLP 553 (CLC)

Ch. M. Abdul Salim for Petitioner. Asif Jan, A. A.‑G. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th November, 1976. The petitioner is a Lambardar. He was arrested on 24‑11‑1976 under section 82 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act XVII of 1967 (as amended) on the ground that he had not cleared the arrears of land revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Lambardar could be arrested or otherwise proceeded against only if he had collected or received land revenue from the land‑owners/Asamidars concerned and thereafter had not deposited the same in the Treasury, etc. In case when the land‑owners or.Asamidars had themselves not paid any land revenue to the Lambardar, no penal action of the kind involved in this case could be taken against the Lambardar as such. Learned counsel had argued that in this case it were the land‑owners/Asamidars concerned who were the defaulters and not the petitioner inasmuch as, they had not paid the due land revenue to him. The question whether the land‑owners/Asamidars had paid the land revenue to the Lambardar or not, is obviously a question of fact and cannot be gone into the the course of writ jurisdiction especially, when it depends upon taking evidence and holding of a roving enquiry. Same is the position about the legal plea hereinbefore raised which will have to be attended to, firstly on broad principle and secondly, on factual plane. From the papers produced by the respondents, all that I can say is that the matter is not clear. However, as I have already observed, this is a matter which is a subject for the authorities concerned to look into and I would not therefore, express any opinion on the same and leave it open. For my purpose, I can refer to subsection (3) of section 82 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, where it is written that :‑ "When the defaulter is brought before the Revenue Officer, the Revenue Officer may cause him to be taken before the Collector or may keep him under personal restraint for a period not exceeding ten days, and then, if the arrear is still unpaid, cause him to be taken before the Collector. Subsection (4) of section 82 lays down that‑ "where the Revenue Officer keeping a defaulter under personal restraint is an Assistant Collector of the second grade, he shall without delay report his action to the Collector, if the period of such restraint exceeds twenty‑four hours." The Tehsildar and the Naib‑Tebsildar were present in person alongwith the relevant record. The action impugned in this ease is of the Naib‑Tehsildar who is an Assistant Collector second grade. It is conceded that the matter of arrest of the petitioner was not reported to the Collector within twenty‑four hours of his arrest and nor anything on the file produced before me showed that this was done. In this view of the matter, the detention of the petitioner which exceeded twenty‑four hours, but which was not reported to the Collector, obviously, is against the mandatory provisions of the law on the subject and is without lawful authority. I hold accordingly.

2. The petition for these reasons is accepted and the detention of the petitioner, which at the time of the "Return" submitted to this Court, is not in accordance with law is hereby set aside. The petitioner should be released forthwith if not required in any other case under any law for the time being, in force. This however, shall not debar the authorities concerned from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law if really they are so minded keeping in view the facts and the evidence of the case and the relevant law on the subject.

3. This order will cover W. P. No. 2843/1976 which was heard along with the present petition and in which the facts were almost similar. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.