' By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, the petitioner Pervez Akram prays that the detenu Javed Akhtar be set at liberty, for he is being illegally detained by the Collector, District Kasur, Tehsildar, Tehsil Kasur and the Superintendent, District Jail, Kasur.
2. The facts tire not disputed. The detenu is a brother of the petitioner. Their father Maqbool Ahmad is stated to be a defaulter within the meaning of sections 81 and 82 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 read with section 4(7) of that Act. It appears that notice under section 81 of the Land Revenue Act was issued to Maqbool Ahmad but he was not to be found. According to the written reply of the Assistant Collector, the detenu appeared before him on 16-11-1992 and made a statement before the undersigned that "he would deposit the said dues of his father within 15 days failing which being surety he will be held responsible." The detenu did not pay the dues upto 1-12- 1992. Consequently notice was served upon him to appear before him on 13-12-1992. He failed to do so. He was arrested on 14-12-1992 and was then sent to District Jail, Kasur for 26 days by the order of the Collector.
3. In short, the case of the Assistant Collector is that the detenu has been detained as surety of his father, and he too is a defaulter.
4. Section 81 of the Land Revenue Act requires a notice of demand to be issued to the defaulter.
Under section 82 of the Act after the lapse of 20 days of the service of the notice of demand under section 81, if arrears of land revenue remain unpaid, the Revenue Officer may issue a warrant directing the arrest of the defaulter or the person who furnished security under clause (b) of subsection (8). When the defaulter is brought before the Revenue Officer, he may cause him to be taken to the Collector. When the defaulter is brought before the Collector, he may issue an order directing him to be confined in the jail for a period not exceeding one month. By subsection (8) of section 82, a defaulter who is being kept under personal restraint of the Revenue Officer or is being confined in the civil jail shall forthwith be set at liberty (a) on the arrears due from such defaulter being paid or (b) on the defaulter furnishing to the Revenue Officer ordering his arrest, or the Collector, security to the satisfaction of the Revenue Officer or the Collector, as the case may be, for the payment of the arrears due from him.
5. The expression 'defaulter' is defined in section 4, subsection (7) of the Land Revenue Act to mean a person liable for an arrear of land revenue and 'includes a person who is responsible as surety for payment of the arrear'.
6. It has been seen that according to the respondents, the detenu had made a statement to the effect that he would pay the money on behalf of his father. It was on the basis of that statement that the detenu was treated as surety. Thus, admittedly, the detenu had not stood surety for the payment of the arrears when the original contract came into being. It is clear also that the detenu has been arrested and detained in the purported exercise of the powers under section 82, subsection (1). Under that section the power is to arrest the defaulter or the person 'who furnishes security under clause (b) of subsection (8)'. The definition of the expression 'defaulter' in section 4(7) is, as all definitions generally are, subject to 'anything repugnant in the subject or context'. As regards the 'subject' liability of a surety does not under the general civil law ordinarily include the liability to arrest. Even, under the criminal law, a person who stands surety for another is liable, under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to imprisonment after he has suffered the forfeiture of his bond because that section so provides. As to the context of section 82 of the Land Revenue Act, it is open to serious doubt that the term 'defaulter' in the expression `niay issue a warrant directing an officer named therein to arrest the defaulter or the person who furnishes security under clause (b) of subsection (8)' includes a surety other than the person who furnishes security under subsection (8). There cannot be any doubt that the person who has furnished security under subsection (8) of section 82 becomes a surety of the principal bebtor and there was, therefore, no need, when creating the liability to arrest, to mention that person expressly. So, the express mention of that person, when giving the power to arrest, was evidently intended to exclude other sureties. This construction accords with the well-known principle that statutes affecting the liberty of citizens must be strictly construed and that if there be any doubt, that must be resolved in favour of the citizens.
7. The question in this case is whether the detenu was a person who had furnished security under clause (b) of subsection (8) of section 82 of the Land Revenue Act. The answer is plainly in the negative. It has been seen that subsection (8) of section 82 applies when the defaulter has been arrested and has been directed to be confined in jail. Here, no defaulter was arrested or confined in jail and there was, therefore, no question of any defaulter being set at liberty or any security being furnished under subection (8). It must follow, therefore, that the detenu was not a person who had furnished security under subsection (8) and there was, therefore, no power under subsection (1) of section 82 to order his arrest.
8. For these reasons, the writ petition is accepted and it is held that the arrest and detention of the detenu is without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. He shall be set at liberty forthwith.