SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---By these seven petitions leave is sought against order dated 9-10-1990 passed by Division Bench of Peshawar High Cour at Peshawar, whereby seven writ petitions filed by petitioners before us have been dismissed in limine.
2. Briefly stated relevant facts giving rise to these petitions are that petitioners are Lambardars of different villages in District Mardan and collected revenue and Abiyana according to Dal Bach for deposit in the treasury. According to the petitioners, as per practice, revenue etc. So collected is deposited in the treasury through Wasil Baqi Navees, who is a revenue accountant and issues receipt for Pachotra (5% amount) which is taken to National Bank of Pakistan for preparation of order of payment.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that fraud and misappropriation took place either in the office of Wasil Baqi Navees or the Bank showing that revenue etc. Was not deposited in the treasury for which improperly blame has been thrown upon the petitioners and ultimately warrants had been issued to arrest them.
4. Petitioners filed civil suits which were dismissed on the ground that they were barred under section 91 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Appeals were dismissed by Additional District Judge, Mardan on the grounds that payment was not made of dues before filing of suits as contemplated under section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and suits were incompetent as for their filing jurisdiction of Civil Courts was barred as contemplated under section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. No other steps were taken and matter was not persued any further. Petitioners then filed writ petitions before Peshawar High Court which have been dismissed in limine 'as stated above. It would be pertinent to mention that action was taken against two Wasil Baqi Navees and they were dismissed after enquiry and did not succeed upto the forum of Service Tribunal.
5. It is to be seen as to what is the correct procedure laid down under the law for collection and deposit of revenue recovered on behalf of Government. Section 77 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 empowers Board of Revenue with previous apfroval of the Government to make rules not inconsistent with the Act to regulate the collection, remission and suspension of land revenue.
Board of Revenue, West Pakistan framed West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which shall be referred hereafter as the said Rules. Part 3 in the said Rules relates to Village Headmen (Lambardars) and Rule 22 specifics duties of the headman which include collection of land revenue and payment of same personally or by revenue money order or by remittance of currency notes through the post or at place where treasury business is conducted by the State Bank of Pakistan or any other bank, by cheque, on a local bank, at the place and time appointed in that behalf to the Tehsildar concerned. The Headmen are also to issue receipts to the land-owners and others, in token of having recovered the Government dues from them. Under Rule 23 Headman is allowed remuneration for his services at 5% of the amount of land revenue collected (Pachotra) and there is similar provision for collection of Abiana in N.-W.F.P. Rule 45 provides that land revenue shall be paid at the office of Tehsil to which the estate belongs, except where Tehsil treasury at the District. Headquarters had been incorporated with the District treasury. Explanation-1 to Rule 45 of the said Rules reads as under:- "The headman shall present the arz irsal (Form XXIX) to the Tehsil revenue accountant (Wasil Baqi Navees) at the tehsil, who shall verify the correctness and proper distribution of the amount tendered, by reference to the demand statement (village khatauni) and shall prepare receipts (Dakhilas) (Form XXX), in triplicate, shall sign them and shall obtain the signature of the Tehsildar or the NaibTahsildar/Head Munshi thereon. The headman shall then take the money and three copies of the receipt to the treasury and deposit the amount in the treasury." .
6. Proper procedure as to how to collect the revenue and deposit it in the treasury is very much provided in the said Rules as stated above, according to which it appears that it is the duty of Lambardar to make collection and deposit in the Government treasury. Stand taken by the petitioners that their duty came to an end when revenue was deposited with Wasil Baqi Navees has no cover of rules. In view of this legal position, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the High Court dismissing writ petitions.
7. High Court while dismissing writ petitions at the end of the order has observed that if petitioners have deposited the amount in dispute or part thereof in the Government treasury, then such receipts be produced before the Collector, which shall be looked into and accounted for. It is also left open by the High Court to the .Petitioners to proceed against Wasil Baqi Navees in their personal capacity for amount of which they have been defrauded. Since we have declined interference with the order of the High Court, directions of the High Court held the field -and aie to be complied with. Resultantly leave is refused and petitions are dismissed.