' This is an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. In the nature of habeas corpus praying that detention of Haji Muhammad Khan, real brother of the petitioner be declared to be unlawful and of no legal effect.
2. The facts which are not disputed are that the detenu had obtained two loans from the respondent No, 1, one for the purchase of tractor and the other for fertilizer and pesticides.
According to the respondents, only a sum of Rs,55,054 was paid by the detenu who has failed to clear his remaining liability. It is also alleged that the detenu sold away the tractor in violation of the agreement with the result that the respondent No, 1 recalled the entire loan in accordance with the agreement between the detenu and respondent No,1. It is claimed that on account of failure of the detenu to pay the amount due, the respondents were justified in recovering it as arrears of land revenue by detaining the defaulter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if some amount was payable by the detenu which was recoverable as arrears of land revenue, yet his arrest/detention is without any lawful authority as the procedure prescribed by sections 81 and 82 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 was not followed. It was explained by the learned counsel that the detenu was not served with any notice either under section 81 or section 82 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has also been heard.
5.. There is no dispute that the amount due from a defaulter to the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan is recovered as arrears of land revenue according to section 25(2) of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961. The procedure to be adopted is provided in Chapter VIII of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 which by virtue of section 115 applies not only to recovery of land revenue but also to any sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Section 80 of the Punjab Land Revnenue Act, 1967 enumerates the methods which can be adopted for recovery of such dues, which include the arrest and detention of the person of defaulter: Sections 81 and 82 require that service of two notices must be affected upon the defaulter by the Revenue Officer before issuing warrant; the first being a notice of demand requiring payment within 15 days in case of the default or failure to comply with that notice, the Revenue Officer is required to issue a further notice directing payment of amount due within one month. It is only when the amount in question remains unpaid beyond the period prescribed that the Revenue Officer can issue process for arrest and detention of a defaulter.
6. It follows therefore that service of two notices of demand is a sine qua non for issuance of warrant of arrest and in the absence of any of the two notices, the detention would be illegal. It was so held in Manzoor Ahmad Malik Yaqoob and another (PLD 1988 Lah. 627).
7. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the legal proposition discussed above. But he has submitted that requisite notices were served upon the dctenu. However, no such notice has been placed on record. The only reliance in this regard is a notice issued by the Manager, Agricultural Development Bank, Tandlianwala Branch on 18th July, 1991 recalling the loan. Such a notice hardly satisfies the requirements of sections 81 and 82 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 and in any case this notice does not emanate from the Manager of Agricultural Development Bank but was issued by respondent No, 1 and is, therefore, of no avail. It is evident that no notice in terms of section 80 and section 81 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 was served upon the dctenu in absence whereof his detention was illegal.
' As a result of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs. This order shall not be construed as debarring the respondents from proceeding afresh in accordance with law.