' Instant petition has been filed for declaring the detention of Mazhar Iqbal son of Abdul Haffeez to be illegal and improper.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mst. Jameela Begum mother of the alleged detenu had obtained a loan of Rs,95,000 in 1997. She had been adjudged to be a defaulter and recovery proceedings have been initiated against her under the Land Revenue Act. In pursuance of the proceedings of recovery under Land Revenue Act, respondent No,3 has detained Mazhar Iqbal son of the original loanee, as he had stood surety for the repayment of the loan advanced to his mother. This detention of the alleged detenu has been assailed through the instant petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated his contentions as raised in the instant petition.
5. Conversely, the stand of the learned counsel for the respondents is that as loan had been advanced to the mother of the alleged detenu and she was a defaulter and the alleged detenu 'had stood her surety and had not repaid the amount, so he has been detained by the order of Recovery Officer/Tehsildar Agricultural Development Bank, Minchanabad. He further contends that alleged detenu has been detained in compliance of notice issued under sections 81 and 82 of Land Revenue Act.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the record pertaining to the detention of the alleged detenu. A perusal of the record reveals that notice under section 81 of the Land Revenue Act has been issued on 12-5-2001. It appears to have been served upon Mazhar Iqbal, whose thumb-impression has been obtained on the back of said notice. The said thumb-impression does not contain any report of any person who had effected service upon Mazhar Iqbal, the alleged detent. This thumb-impression also does not contain any date of service. The record further reveals that warrant of arrest under section 82 of Land Revenue Act has been issued on 10-5-2001 and was to be returned till 15-6-2001. There is nothing on the record to show if this warrant was ever executed by any person as it does not contain any such report on the back of this warrant.
However the record reveals that a separate record regarding the production of Mazhar Iqbal before the Recovery Officer has been prepared wherein he has been shown to have been produced before the Recovery Officer. On 13-6-2001. It also reveals that after initiating required proceedings the alleged detent was sent to civil prison for 10 days on 13-6-2001. Record further reveals that on 25-6-2001 the alleged detent was produced before the EAC/MIC, Minchanabad who granted his further detention till 27-6-2001. A perusal of record reveals that notice under section 81, Land Revenue Act alleged to have been served upon Mazhar Iqbal has not been executed in accordance with law. Similar is the position with regard to the warrant of arrest under section 82, Land Revenue Act. Even the detention of the alleged detenu after the expiry of 10 days is not valid as the EAC/MIC, Minchanabad was not competent to grant extension, which can only be granted by the Collector, as required by section 82, Land Revenue Act.
7. A perusal of record prepared by the Recovery Officer reveals that it has been prepared in a hurry to make out some case in favour of the bank and for detaining the alleged detenu, who has been detained simply on the ground that he is son of the original loanee, who is a defaulter. The Recovery Officer is present in the Court and has been warned to be careful in passing such orders in future, failing which necessary action shall be initiated, against him. The record further reveals that bank authorities are not initiating action against the defaulter in accordance with law. It is also observed that instead of initiating action against the original loanee/defaulter, they initiate action against any other member of the family or guarantees without complying with codal formalities. In the instant case, loan has been obtained by the mother of the detenu, but proceedings have been initiated against the detenu on the ground that he stood surety of his mortgagor. It is very strange that loanee has pledged her land with the bank and instead of dealing with her property, bank authorities/respondents have chosen to make the detenu as a scapegoat of the original loanee.
8 Since the record prepared by the respondents clearly shows that it has not been prepared in accordance with law, so the instant writ petition is accepted and the detention of Mazhar Irbil/alleged detent is declared illegal and he is set at liberty. As the Recovery Officer has obtained order, dated 25-6-2001 from an Officer, who was not authorized to grant extension, so he is burdened with a cost of Rs,500 to be recovered from his salary. As the MIC/EAC Minchanabad who has granted remand was not competent to grant such extension, so he is also warned to be careful in future.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent, to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar for his information and placing the same on the file of Recovery Officer as well as MIC/EAC concerned.