KIRPAL SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, Kirpal Singh has sought the intervention of this Court to prevent his arrest under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 .

(2.) On the death of his brother Hardial Singh lambardar, the petitioner was entrusted with the duties of a Lambardar to collect the land revenue. The petitioner was asked to explain the account according to which a sum of about Rs. 14,000/- was found due from him as arrears of land revenue which he had collected from the right-holders. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the account and has asked this Court to investigate into this matter. I am afraid, the remedy which is sought by the petitioner is clearly misconceived. It is not within the province of this Court in writ jurisdiction to determine what amount, if any, is due from a Lambardar as collector of land revenue. The trouble has arisen because an order of arrest of the petitioner has been made under Section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, sub-section (1) of which says that "at any time after an arrear of land-revenue has accrued a Revenue-officer may issue a warrant directing an officer named therein to arrest the defaulter and bring him before the Revenue-officer". Mr. Wasu contends for the petitioner that even assuming the account submitted by the Government to be correct, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a defaulter as there is no personal liability of his to pay the land-revenue. Such a construction, in my opinion, would be an utter distortion of reality. As Lambardar, the petitioner is bound to account for the amounts received by him from the right-holders as land-revenue. If the learned counsel is correct, a Lambardar may misappropriate the amounts collected by him and successfully contend that he is not a defaulter under Section 69(1). A defaulter is defined under sub-section (8) of Section 3 to mean a person liable for an arrear of land-revenue, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payments of the arrear. Can it be said with any semblance of justification that the petitioner, who has not made good the moneys which he had collected as arrears of land-revenue from right-holders, is not liable for their payment ?

(3.) In my opinion, there is neither force nor justice in the case which has been made on behalf of the petitioner, and I would accordingly dismiss his application with costs.