' The present writ petition has been brought by the petitioner to challenge the detention of his brother namely Muhammad Inayat Bhatti, Lumbardar of village Gujiana Nau, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura by Assistant Commissioner/Collector and Tehsildar, Sheikhupura.
2. It is contended that Muhammad Inayat Bhatti is a lumberdar since 12 years. He never committed a default and as soon as he received the revenue from the landowners, he deposited the same in the Revenue Department. Some of the landowners have not paid the land revenue and the arrears are outstanding against them. Respondents were informed about the default and a list of the defaulters was supplied to them. Respondents, thereafter, were duty bound to proceed against the defaulters under the provisions of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. It is stated that Muhammad Inayat Bhatti was arrested on 29-5-1998 on the ground that he has failed to deposit the sum of Rs,1,79,170 which is due as land revenue from the landowners. It is submitted that Muhammad Inayat Bhatti, has deposited a sum of Rs,1,8,500 from his own pocket although he was not required to do so.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the detention is illegal and improper because the detenue is not a defaulter and prayed for his release.
4. Vide order dated 28-8-1998 respondents were summoned to show-cause under what authority they have detained the detenu-Muhammad Inayat Bhatti.
5. Respondents submit that Muhammad Inayat Bhatti., Lumberdar failed to collect the land revenue in the sum of Rs,1,79,170 from the landowners and it was due to his neglect that the said amount could not be recovered. For the aforesaid reasons, Muhammad Inayat Bhatti, was kept in detention. It is admitted that he paid a sum of Rs,1,08,500 towards the payment of default.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to section 36 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 wherein the Board of Revenue with the previous approval of the Government is authorised to regulate the payment, dues, emoluments arrangement suspension and removal of village officers. In pursuance of the aforesaid section, West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 were framed. Rlue-22 outlines the duty of headman. Sub-rule (1) of rule 22 reads as follows:- "Duties of headmen.---In addition to the duties imposed upon head under any other law, a headman shall--- revenue, from the estate, or sub-division of an estate in which he holds office, and pay the 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.
(ii) collect the rents and other income of the common land, and account for these to the persons entitled thereto.
(iii) issue receipts in Form .1 to the landowners and others, in token of having recovered the Government dues from them."
It is next contended that if the headman commits a breach or neglects in the performance of duties imposed on him then under rule 24, collector may after giving him an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action direct that
(a) the emoluments of his office be withheld and forfeited to Government, for a term, not exceeding one year; or
(b) he may be suspended from office, of a term not exceeding one year.
7. Learned Counsel in order to take his argument to its logical conclusion submitted that by no stretch of imagination, respondent/Revenue Officers could detain Muhammad Inayat Bhatti, in prison for not having collected the revenue from the landowners and failing to deposit the same in the Revenue Department. Muhammad Inayat Bhatti, Lumberdar could not at all be termed as defaulter, who it is argued, is the landowner and not the Lumberdar. If there is sufficient evidence to show that Lumberdar failed or neglected to collect the land revenue then proper course was action against him by the Collector under Rule 24 (ibid). It was further contended that procedure for recovery from the defaulter was outlined in sections 74 to 82 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. Section 80 provided for the process of recovery of arrears of land revenue by providing different modes to be issued by the Revenue Officers on the defaulter and section 82 highlighted the arrest and detention of a defaulter. It is contended with emphasis that the word defaulter was defined in subsection (7) of section 4 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 to mean a person liable for an arrears of land revenue and includes a person who is responsible as surety for payment of the arrears. By no stretch of imagination could a Lumberdar, who failed to collect the land revenue from the landowners, be termed as a defaulter to be arrested and detained in civil prison under section 82 of the Act (ibid).
8. Confronted with the aforesaid arguments, learned Additional Advocate-General had no plausible reply and stressed that it was the duty of the Lumberdar to exert pressure and influence to collect the land revenue from the landowners.
9. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the detention of Muhammad Inayat Bhatti, Lumberdar is forceful and it stands unrebutted by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
10. The failure of the Lumberdar to collect land revenue from landowners if it is due to his neglect or commits a wilful breach of dues will certainly invite action under rule 24 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, but certainly it would not empower the authorities to dub him as a defaulter and invite action under sections 80 to 82 of the Act (ibid). The detention of Muhammad Inayat Ali Lumberdar by the respondents under section 82 of the Act, therefore, cannot be condoned simply on the plea that he failed to collect land revenue from land owners, consequently, it is declared illegal and improper. Resultantly, the writ petition is accepted, the detenu, if not required in any other case, shall be set at liberty forthwith.