DILBAGH SINGH GANGA SINGH Vs. TEHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Petition Under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed by Dilbagh Singh of village Rora, District Hosmarpur, and is directed against the Tensildar Dasuya, uonectoi of Hoshiarpur, Superintendent District Jail Hoshiarpur, and the State of Punjab. According to the allegations of. the petitioner, his father Ganga Singh took a loan of Rs. 4500/-from the Government in the year 1954 for the installation of a tube well on his land. One Dayal Singh stood surety to the repayment. The tubewell was installed--in 1954 and tn land came under river bed in 1955. Ganga Singh tnereattei died in 1959. The petitioner was arrested an 24-p-i960 for the non-payment of the aforesaid loan, but he, was later on released. On 7-1-1963, the petitioner was again called by the Tahsildar Dasuya for making payment of the aforesaid loan and as the aforesaid loan was not paid tne petitioner was put under arrest and was lodged in the Central Jail, Hoshiarpur, under orders of the Tahsildar Dasuya end Collector of Hoshiarpur. According to the petitioner, he could not be arrested because of default for the repayment of the aforesaid loan. The petitioner accordingly prayed that he be set at liberty.

(2.) WRITTEN statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed by the Collector of Hoshiarpur. According to the stand of the respondents, Ganga Singh, father of the petitioner, was advanced a loan of Rs. 4500/- on 24-3-1955 the installation of a tubewell under the Land Improvemem Loans Act (19 of 1883 ). The Collector was not informed 0' the installation of the tubewell and it was only In the year 1960 that a plea was taken that the tubewell had been installed by Ganga Singh deceased. The evidence adduced about the installation of the tubewell was found to be not convincing. The petitioner, it is stated, was arrested on 24-6-1960 by the Tahsildar Dasuya and was produced betora the Collector of Hashiarpur on 3-7-1960 who extended the detention for a further period of 30 days. The petitioner was released on 9-7-1960 on his furnishing surety. The petitioner was thereafter called by the Tahsildar on 7-1-1963 and was arrested in default of payment of the loan advancea to his father. There was also reference in the written statement of loan to the petitioner but no particulars of that loan are given and a fair reading of the written statemsni goes to show that the petitioner is being detained for the loan advanced to his father.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Bahri on behalf of the petitioner Bnd Mr. Jagga on behalf of the respondents and am of the view that the order for the detention of the petitioner Is not warranted by law. The loan which was advanced to the father of the petitioner was admittedly under Act 19 of 1883. Section 7 of that Act makes provision for the recovery of loan In case it is not paid and the relevant part of that section reads as under:?