' Pursuant to the order, dated 15-6-1994, the bailiff has produced the alleged detenu, Muhammad Yasin before the Court and submitted his report which is to the effect that respondent No,2 had informed him that the alleged detenu was confined in the lock-up under the order of respondent No,1, as he was a defaulter of property tax to the tune of more than Rs,10,000.
2. The alleged detenu submitted before the Court that on 14-6-1994, he had gone to the office of respondent No,2 pursuant to the receipt of written directions to that effect by the said respondent No,2 Qazi Iftikhar Hussain, Inspector Excise and Taxation and the said directions were annexed hereto. As 'A" and "B" duly signed by the said Inspector, and that he was locked up within the premises of the office of the respondents on 14-6-1994 and his explanation to that effect was that the property tax demanded in respect of the property was not owned by him, and that from the "Havalat" in question he was recovered by the bailiff.
3. Agha Ali, the Excise and Taxation Officer respondent No,1 is present and submitted that the alleged detenu Muhammad Yasin is a defaulter of tax to the tune of Rs,10,800 against Property No,SW-XII-5F F.S.76/9 and that as he was empowered to exercise the powers of Collector for the recovery of the said tax as arrears of land revenue, action against the defaulter/alleged detenu was initiated under the provisions of sections 81 and 82 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and pursuant thereto he had been confined in the judicial lock-up of the department.
4. Respondent No,2 reiterated before the Court what has been recorded above on behalf of respondent No,1 and submitted that he had carried out the necessary instructions of respondent No,1 for service etc. Of the notice and warrants against the alleged detenu.
5. The said respondents are represented by the learned State Counsel Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Vehniwal, Advocate, and submitted that the respondents had taken action against the defaulting tax payer/alleged detenu in accordance with law and as such the entire action being bona fide the detention of the alleged detenu is neither illegal nor improper.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents produced before the Court i,e, the notice directed against the alleged detenu under the provisions of section 81 of the Land Revenue Act, and the subsequent action in respect of which the documents have been produced, were all prepared subsequently and as such are forged. Further, submitted that the respondents had pointed out themselves that the notice issued under the provisions of section 81 of the Land Revenue Act on 15-6-1994 had not been acknowledged by the alleged detenu on 16-3-1994 as endorsed on the said notice. The endorsement of the said notice is as follows:--{{URDU TEXT}} ' The said notice was read out in open Court and copy thereof alongwith copies of the relevant documents have been placed on the record duly signed by respondent No, 1 .
7. Further argued that as in the eyes of law no service has been effected of the said notice, due to refusal of the alleged detenu to sign and acknowledgement of having received the same, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to follow the procedure laid down in such circumstances, i,e, the provisions laid down under section 24 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, which is to the effect that if the notice cannot be served in person or an authorised agent or an adult family member or if the same is refused it shall be served by affixing a copy thereof at the usual or last known place of residence of the person to be served; and in this respect, argued that the failure of the respondents to comply with the said provisions renders the detention of the alleged detenu to be illegal.
' Further submitted that in any case it is the case of the alleged detent that the property against which the tax was sought to be recovered, does not belong to him.
8. The respondents conceded on a Court's question that pursuant to the refusal of the said alleged detenu to sign the notice/summon, dated 15-3-1994 on 16-3-1994, no steps were taken to serve the same in the manner stated under the provisions of section 24 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 as recorded above i,e, finally a copy thereof was not affixed on the place of the residence of the defaulter/alleged detenu. Therefore, it is hereby observed that the failure of the respondents to comply with the necessary provisions of law as laid down, in section 82 and section 24 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 renders the detention of the alleged detenu Muhammad Yasin by respondents, to be without lawful authority, hence, illegal. Resultantly, the notice issued herein is made absolute and the habeas corpus petition is allowed accordingly. Consequently, the detenu Muhammad Yasin is hereby set at liberty and is free to go wherever he will.
8. However, anything stated herein shall not prejudice the case of the parties in respect of the dispute regarding the question of tax to be recovered in accordance with law.