' Heard.
2. Comments of respondent No,1 have been filed and perused.
3. Instant petition has been tiled by the petitioner for recovery and production of his father Jindwadda son of Khair Muhammad from the illegal custody of respondents.
4. Briefly stated the facts are that the detenu Jindwadda son of Khair Muhammad, father of the petitioner, was appointed as temporary Lambardar. In 1995 of Mauza Bindra Tehsil Bahawalpur for the recovery of land revenue for the crops of Rabi 1992 to Kharif 1994. He started collecting arrears of land revenue for the crops of Rabi 1992, Kharif, 1992, Rabi 1993, Kharif 1993, Rabi 1995, Kharif 1995 and Rabi 1996 and deposited a sum of Rs,26,529 Rs,25,208, Rs,19,000, Rs,22,312, Rs,26,000, Rs,38,106 and Rs,32,000 vide challans Annexures A to G respectively. He also moved an application Annexure H for the collection of arrears of land revenue alongwith list of defaulter Annexure H/1 with the Revenue Officer as required by section 56 of Land Revenue Rules 1968. He also moved a similar application Annexure K for the recovery of Rs,33,000 from the defaulters and requested for appropriate action against them. It is asserted that respondent No,1 without initiating any penal action against the defaulters arrested his father and has sent him to Central Jail Bahawalpur. It is argued that this coercive order of respondent No, I is in direct conflict with the provisions of Section 113 of Land Revenue Act read with ' Section 56 of the Rules framed thereunder, as such be declared illegal and detenu be set at liberty.
5. Conversely, comments of respondent No, 1 reveal that as per statement of detenu dated 27-2- 1997, a sum of Rs,80,166.13 was outstanding against him. And even if he has deposited a sum of Rs,28,000 on 1-3-1997, yet a sum of Rs,52,166.13 is outstanding against him. He has denied that alleged detenu moved applications alongwith list of defaulters for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. He asserted that detention is legal and petition merits dismissal.
6. According to section 36 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, "the Board of revenue may, with the previous approval of Government make rules to regulate the appointment, duties, emoluments, punishments, suspension and removal of village officers. "It is according to this provision of the Land Revenue Act that headman, also known as Lambardar, is appointed. According to section 113 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, land revenue is collected either by the Revenue Officer or by village officer/headman/lambardar.
7. The question involved in the instant petition is very simple. The stand of the petitioner is that his father has been appointed temporary lambardar and has been collecting and depositing the arrears of land revenue and his father has been detained for non-payment of land revenue from certain land-owners.
8. Recovery of arrears of land revenue is governed by Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act 1968, which provides two eventualities and it is the first one, with which we are concerned in this case, section 113, (ibid) reads as follows:- "Recovery of certain arrears through Revenue Officer instead of by suit. When a village officer required by rules under section 36 to collect any land revenues or sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue--
(a) Satisfies a Revenue Officer that the revenue or the sum has fallen due and has not been paid to him, or
(b) has collected such revenue or sum, but has not credited the same to Government in the manner provided in the rules, the Revenue Officer may, subject to rules which the Board of Revenue may make in this behalf, recover such revenue or sum, from the person from whom it is due, or the village officer by whom it Was collected, as the case may be as arrears of land revenue."
' A perusal of this section 113 shows that initially the duty of collecting land revenue vests with the headman/Lambardar and in case he satisfies the Revenue Officer that certain defaulters are not making payment to him, he has to bring this fact into the notice of Revenue Officer, whose duty is to collect the same from defaulters subject to the Rules framed by the Board of Revenue. In the instant case the detenu/Lambardar has been recovering land revenue and depositing the same vide receipts referred above. He has also been moving applications to the Revenue Officer with a list of defaulters, as stipulated by Rule 56 of the Rules framed thereunder which reads as follows:-- ' RULE 56 OF PUNJAB LAND REVENUE RULES, 1968.
' "Application of Headmen for recovery of arrears from defaulters.--(1) When headman wants to make recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrears of land revenue under section 113, he shall make an application to the Revenue Officer stating herein:--
(a) the name and description of the defaulter;
(b) the arrears of which recovery is desired;
(c) the circumstances which have made the application necessary.
(2) Any number of defaulters residing in the same estate may, at the discretion of Revenue Officer, to whom the application is made, be included in the same application, but the arrears due from each defaulter shall be separately specified."
9. In view of such illegal provisions, it appears that Respondent No,1 has proceeded under an erroneous assumption that irrespective of the fact whether the alleged detenu submitted the list as required under Rule 56 or not, proceedings could be taken against him. Such a view of the law is not correct. Therefore, this petition is allowed with costs and coercive action taken against the alleged detenu, without satisfying the requirements of law, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Consequently, detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.