' Since the deficiency of court-fee has been made up so the office is directed to convert the instant petition into writ petition and then to register it as writ petition.
2. Briefly stated the contention of the petitioner is that the detenu/loanee had obtained a loan of Rs,40,000 but he has been shown to have been advanced a loan of Rs,70,400 on 30-12-1997 and later on he obtained a loan of Rs,25,000 but has been shown to have been advanced a sum of Rs,32,600 on 28-3-1998.
3. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the loanee is a defaulter yet his detention is not fortified by sections 81 and 82 of the Land Revenue Act. While elaborating his contention he submits that the loanee was arrested and detained for ten days vide order dated 24-5-2001 and which expired on 3-6-2001, that his period of detention has been extended for another 28 days w,e,f, 2-6-2001 to 29-6-2001 vide order, dated 1-6-2001 by the Assistant Commissioner, Ahmedpur East who was not competent to grant such extension, as the extension can only be granted by the Collector as contemplated by subsection (3) of section 82 of Land Revenue Act. He thus contends that detention of the loanee is not warranted by law and be declared as illegal. He next submitted that even if it is assumed that loanee is a defaulter yet he could not be sent behind the bars while exercising powers conferred under section 82 of Land Revenue Act, as his land stood pledged with the Bank, which could be disposed of to recover the outstanding amount and in this respect had placed reliance upon Muhammad Yasin v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Chairman and 3 others 1995 M LD 12 (Lahore). He thus submitted that writ petition be accepted and the detention of the loanee/alleged detenu be declared illegal and void.
4. Conversely, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been controverted/rebutted by the learned counsel for the respondent/Bank.
5. The stand of the learned counsel for the Bank is that as the loanee became a defaulter so he was issued a notice under section 81 of the Land Revenue Act on 24-4-2001, which was served upon him on the same date, as is evident from the notice available on record, that he was also issued a notice under section 82 of the Land Revenue Act on 24-4-2001, which was also served upon him, on the said date. He further contends that as the loanee did not repay the amount even in spite of service of notice under sections 81 and 82 of the Land Revenue Act, so he was detained for 10 days vide order, dated 24-5-2001. He further contends that as the loanee still did not pay any amount so the said period has been extended up to 29-6-2001 by the order of Assistant Commissioner, Ahmedpur East who is invested with power of Collector. He thus submits that no illegality has been committed in passing order of detention of the loanee in the first instance as well as in the second instance.
6. The only point, which requires determination is if the detention of the loanee is in violation of the provisions of Land Revenue Act. According to section 81 of the Land Revenue Act, a notice of demand is to be served upon a defaulter. According to section 82 of the Land Revenue Act if after the lapse of 15 days of the service of notice of demand under section 81, a loanee fails to pay the arrears of land revenue due from him, or any part thereof, the Revenue Officer may further issue a notice to the defaulter requiring him to pay such amount and if after lapse of 30 days of the service of such notice no amount is paid then the Revenue Officer is entitled to issue a warrant of arrest. In the instant case the notice under section 81 has been issued on 24-4-2001 and it is stated to have been served upon the defaulter/loanee on the same date. The record further reveals that a notice under section 82 has also been issued on the same date i,e, 24-4-2001 and is said to have been served upon the loanee on the same date. It is very strange that Notice under section 81 has- been issued on 24-4-2001 and without waiting for its service the notice under section 82 has also been issued on the same date. The law requires that if after the lapse of 15 days' notice under section 81 is not served or in case it is served but the loanee or defaulter does not make any payment then notice under section 82 is to be issued. In the instant case both the notices under sections 81 and 82 of Land Revenue Act, have been issued on one and the same date. Again the loanee was arrested on 24-5-2001 and was detained initially for 10 days, which was to expire on 3-6-2001.
Before the requisite period had expired extension has been obtained on 1-6-2001 w,e,f, 2-6-2001 up to 29-6-2001. The extension could only be obtained if the defaulter had failed to pay the amount during the period of 10 days required initially by section 82 of the Land Revenue Act. The extension in the instant case, has been obtained from the Assistant Commissioner, Ahmedpur East who according to the stand of learned counsel for the respondents is exercising powers of Collector, which fact stands denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing on the record to show if the Assistant Commissioner, Ahmedpur East while allowing extension exercised his powers as a Collector or as Assistant Commissioner, Ahmedpur East, as the seal affixed under his signature is silent on that score.
7. Since there is nothing on the record to show that order of extension has been passed by the A.C., Ahmedpur East exercising powers of Collector, so prima facie, order of extension suffers from illegality.
8. Be that as it may, it is also fact that the loanee has pledged his land with the Bank at the time of securing loan. Admittedly no action by the Bank has been initiated for disposing of that property and to recover the outstanding amount in question. On the other hand the Bank has resoted to this distress process against the loanee simply on the ground that he has failed to deposit the amount outstanding against him. This practice has not been approved as held in 1995 M LD 12 (Lahore).
9. The upshot of above discussion is that the detention of the loanee being in violation to the provisions of section 82 of the Land Revenue Act is declared illegal and he is ordered to be released forthwith.
10. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.