' The petitioner, a Sarbrah Lambardar of village Dhorowala in District Sheikhupra, has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction for challenging the coercive processes whereby his arrest and detention in Civil prison is sought for making a default in depositing arrears of land revenue due from the owners in the estate of which he happens to be a Sarbrah Lambardar.
2. The petitioner's case is a simple one and he has stated that he has been periodically submitting the list of defaulters showing also the amount due from them and instead of proceeding against such defaulters the revenue authorities particularly the Tehsildar, Sheikhupura, had been proceeding against him personally. In response to the case set out by the petitioner what has been stated is that a show-cause notice was given to him and thereafter recovery was sought to he made. As regards the amount shown duo from the defaulters in the list furnished by the petitioner, it is stated "but the amount shown in the Fars! Baqaya itself merit realisation from him." On this ground it is also stated "however, the Lambardar is under a legal obligation to collect and deposit the same and he is paid as such. Despite of the legal facts the petitioner Lambardar cannot wave his responsibility upon the land owners and is himself responsible. Since the payment of the outstanding land revenue from the land owners was not effected by the Lambardar. Hence the notice was rightly issued to him." On such a defence being taken I called upon the Revenue Officer to attend the Court with the record. It was stated by him that the record of recovery was burnt long back and an F. I. R. Was also registered in respect of it (Annex. C).
3. On the legal plane, it appears that the respondents are not clear about their powers and duties.
Section 113 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act provides two eventualities and it is the first with which we are concerned in this case." When a village officer satisfies a Revenue Officer that the revenue or sum has fallen due end has not been paid to him, 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." The other contingency that is of the amount having been realised by the Lambardar and not deposited, has not arisen in this case. The Board of Revenue has framed rules on the subject and rule 56 provides that "when headman wants to make recovery of land revenue or any sum recoverable as 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 arrear of which recovery is desired and (c) the circumstances which have made the application necessary. Thereafter, the Revenue Officer is to summon the defaulter to adjudge the duo and to proceed against the defaulter. In view of such a legal provision, it appears that the respondents have proceeded under an erroneous assumption that irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner submitted the fist as required under rule 56 or not, the proceedings could be taken against him. Such a view of the law is not correct. Therefore, this petition is allowed with costs and the coercive action taken against the petitioner without satisfying the requirements of the law is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.