' This is an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. In the nature of a habeas corpus, praying that detention of Ijaz-ud-Din Rathore, brother-in-law of the petitioner, be declared to be unlawful and of no legal effect.
2. The undisputed facts are that Ijaz-ud-Din Rathore, alleged detenu, obtained a loan of Rs,3,00,000 from Small Business Corporation during the year 1995 and not of that amount. Deposited a sum of Rs,20,000 in 1996. As the alleged detenu failed to deposit the outstanding dues, so respondent initiated proceedings and detained him on 28-5-1999 in execution of warrant of arrest issued under section 82 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.
3. The detention of the alleged detenu has been assailed mainly on the ground that as notice under section 81 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 has not been served upon him, so his detention as a result of warrant of arrest issued under section 82(1) of the said Act is illegal.
4. Comments of Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Grade-I associated with the process of recovery culminating into detention of the alleged detenu were called. He has submitted the same wherein he has adhered to his contention that he could detain the alleged detenu for 10 days as required by section 82(3) of the said Act and thereafter, produce him before the Collector for his further detention in jail as contemplated by subsection (5) of section 82. He thus, submitted that detention of the alleged detenu is absolutely legal.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as notice required under section 81 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue, 1967 has not been served upon the alleged detenu, so his detention is illegal. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Pehalwan v. Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and another PLD 1993 Lah.
525.
7. Conversely, the impugned order of detention dated 28-5-1999 has been supported by learned counsel for the respondents.
8. A perusal of record shows that notice under section 81 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was issued on 13-5-1997 requiring the detenu/defaulter to deposit outstanding amount of Rs, 1,33,301 till 3-6-1997. This notice was served upon his wife Mst. Yasmeen. As the first notice was not served upon the defaulter personally, so other notices under section 81 were issued on 1-12-1997, 19-2-1998 and 5-5-1998. As the last notice dated 5-5-1998 could not be served upon defaulter personally, so the same was affixed at his residence. Then again a notice under section 81 was issued on 16-2-1999. It is not evident from record, if the said notice was executed upon the defaulter or not. However, another notice dated 8-3-1999 was issued for 22-3-1999. The defaulter refused to accept the said notice. His guarantor Abdul Raoof received the said notice and undertook to inform the defaulter about the service of said notice. Thereafter, a general proclamation was issued on 14- 5-1999 asking the defaulters to deposit the outstanding amounts within 7, days as required by section 81. As the defaulter/detenu failed to deposit the outstanding dues, so a warrant of arrest as contemplated by section 82(1) was issued on 13-5-1999 for 3-6-1999. It is in the execution of this warrant that detenu was arrested on 28-5-1999 and was kept by the Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector Grade-I for 10 days as required by section 82(3) and thereafter, was produced before the Collector as Contemplated by subsection (5) of section 82, who then sent him to jail.
9. A perusal of the authority referred by learned counsel for the petitioner reveals that in the said case, no notice as required by section 81 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 was issued by the department before issuing warrant of arrest under section 82 of the said Act. In the instant case, the alleged detenu has been issued notice under section 81 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 not only once but many times between 13-5-1997 to 3-6-1999. As the detenu refused to accept notice issued under section 81 of the Act, so proceedings under section 82(1) of the said Act were initiated and he was consequently detained on 2g-5-1999. It is, thus, clear that 'facts of the authority relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not identical to the facts in hand.
10. It may be mentioned here that much stress has been laid down by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the cuttings appearing in the notices issued under section 81 of the said Act. There is no doubt that there are some cuttings/changes in the dates of notices dated 16-2-1999 and 8-3- 1999. But these cuttings in the dates do not advance the cause of the petitioner. The only point which requires determination is, if the notice under section 82(1) of the Act has been issued in accordance with law and after adopting the recourse contemplated by section 81 (supra). A resume of facts narrated above prove that detenu has been arrested in the execution of warrant of arrest issued under section 82(1) of the Act after initiating necessary proceedings required by section 81 of the Act (supra).
11. As the alleged defaulter tailed to pay the outstanding amount, so the respondents were justified in initiating proceedings against him under section 82(1) of the said Act by issuing his warrant of arrest dated 13-5-1999. It is in the execution of this warrant that alleged detenu was arrested on 28-5-1999. He was accordingly produced before the concerned officer who kept him under his personal restraint for 10 days as required by section 82(3) of the said Act. As the defaulter failed to pay the arrear, so he was produced before the Collector who sent him to jail as required by subsection (5) of section 82 of the said Act. The action taken by the respondents in arresting him on 28-5-1999 and thereafter, sending him to judicial lock-up does not suffer any illegality, as such his detention cannot be declared illegal. Consequently, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.