ORDER TARIQ JAVAID, J.---The petitioner has assailed the order dated 19-1-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khanewal whereby the arrest of Noor Muhammad brother of the petitioner was held to be legal, as according to the learned Sessions Judge, Noor Muhammad was a defaulter of Rs.3,50,000 and the respondent/Tehsildar was justified in detaining him. It was maintained that the said Noor Muhammad stood surety vide surety deed dated 9-12-2009. It is argued that under section 4(7) of West Pakistan Revenue Act, 1967 in case of failure to pay land revenue the surety for the payment of arrears is deemed to be defaulter.
2. Notices were issued to the respondents and the D.O.(R), Khanewal ' appeared in this Court and maintained that one Mazhar Hussain during life time of his father was working as Sarbarah Numberdar and used to collect revenue and after demise of the Numberdar "dhalpach" was issued to the petitioner's father (Mazhar Hussain), who used to collect revenue till 2004 which were allegedly recovered from the landlords, out of which an amount of Rs.3,50,000 were not deposited with the revenue department. The petitioner stood surety to his father, Mazhar Hussain, Sarbarah Numberdar. The D.O.(R) maintained that since the said Noor Muhammad was a surety, the amount of Rs.3,50,000 was recoverable from him. The D.O.(R) was asked to show the law under which the said Mazhar Hussain could lawfully be asked to collect the "dhalpach" as the Numberdar has already died. No law was shown to this Court. It is not proved by any evidence whether the said Mazhar Hussain collected any amount from the landlords. A mere allegation that Mazhar Hussain collected same amount of which an amount of Rs.3,50,000 has not been paid for which Noor Muhammad stood surety is of no avail. The Provincial Government may streamline the Land Revenue Act and provide for recovery of "dhalpach" through lawful means. However, an authority cannot be given to the revenue officials to entrust the recovery of "dhalbach" to any person of their choice, who does not issue any receipt of the recovery thereof in the circumstances wherein revenue authorities themselves cannot recover land revenue from the landlords and then take steps to effect the recovery from the citizens. In such circumstances the citizen is always likely to turn up and maintain that no such recovery has been effected. Even in the .Present case it has been alleged that, the list of defaulters was given to the revenue department and if the Government cannot make the recovery from the landlords then how on earth, Noor Muhammad brother of humble petitioner could effect the same. No evidence is produced to show the amount of recovery. The petitioner maintains that the list of defaulters has already been furnished by him.
In absence of any machinery, the petitioner cannot be expected to enforce the recovery from the influential landlords wherefrom the Provincial Government itself, cannot recover 'dhalbach'. The whole exercise is illegal and not warranted by law. Neither any citizen, in absence of any lawful authority, can be directed to collect the land revenue nor can such citizen be forced to make good the losses of land revenue suffered by the Government. This petition is allowed. The respondents are restrained from harassing, the petitioner and demanding the alleged recovery in any manner whatsoever. This is high time that the Government may streamline the land revenue system.