PRITHI SINGH Vs. PUNJAB GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has bee filed on the following allegations. The petitioner, Sardar Prithi singh, claims to be a displaced person from West Pakistan and has been allotted about 22 standard acres of agricultural land at village Behram Sarishta in lieu of the land abandoned by him in Pakistan. Against the security of the land allotted to him the State Government is said to have granted to him loans between the years 1950 and 1956 and after payment of some of those loans, according to him, the following amounts are outstanding against him:the petitioner is then stated to have applied through his mukhtar under S. 10 of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, on 23rd of July 1958 for conferring proprietary rights on the petitioner but the Managing Officer, Jullundur, refused to consider this prayer till the petitioner paid back the above loans. The petitioner submits that in 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1958 on account of abnormal rains in Jullundur district his kharif crops were damaged and destroyed, and rabi crops adversely affected, with the result that the Government had to remit even the land revenue of the entire area. The petition then goes on that not only has the petitioner been deprived of the benefit of Section 10 but warrants of his arrest have been issued for the recovery of the loans along with interest and heavy penalty which are claimed to be payable as arrears of land revenue. The amount, according to the petitioner, now claimed is Rs. 7,770/7/3. The petitioner, now that by virtue of Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act he is not liable to be arrested or imprisoned for the recovery of these loans. He also submits that the land allotted to the petitioner on quasi permanent basis constitutes ample security for the repayment of the loan and that his case is also covered by the proviso to sub-rule (2) of R. 72 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules and that the amount can be realised from the land for which a pucca sanad granting permanent proprietary rights is issued to him.

(2.) THE respondents have controverted this petition and according to para 2 of the reply the total amount due from the petitioner comes to Rs. 9,414. 12 NP. It is also pleaded that in the years 1955 to 1957 kharif harvests in village Behram Sarishta suffered due to excessive rains but no damage was caused in 1958 and that the land revenue for those harvests was remitted in full or part according to the damage. All the rabi harvests are said to have matured fully. It is further alleged that the loan in outstanding from the petitioner since 1950 and that crops were damaged only in three out of eighteen harvests. It is further stated that the petitioner has failed to pay even the land revenue for several years, including land revenue for his ancestral land. The petitioner is said to be cultivating the land of his late brother, but land revenue for this land has also not been paid though the land both in behram Sarishte and in the garden colony which he cultivates is very productive. It is further contended that the warrant or arrest issued against the petitioner is on account of arrears of land revenue and not on account of arrears to taccavi loans. Decision in Civil Writ No. 216-D of 1955 has been relied on for the submission that warrant of arrest can be issued for the recovery of rehabilitation loans.

(3.) WHEN the case came up for hearing on 29-7-1959 I enquired if the warrant of arrest or a copy thereof could be made available to this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents was granted time to produce it, if possible. Mr. Mehra has today produced the warrant of arrest which had been issued from a sum of Rs. 520/4/9, the date of the warrant of arrest being 1-9-1957. This warrant of arrest on the face of it merely shows that this amount is due on account of land revenue and it purports to be issued under Section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The record produced, however, clearly shows that this amount consists of various items including taccavi loans for repairs of well and for construction of new well etc. including interest. It is admitted that section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and rehabilitation) Act has been amended by Act 20 of 1959 and that under Sub-sect. (2) as amended if the Chief Settlement Commissioner is of opinion that a person is refusing or neglecting, or has refused or neglected, to pay any sum due under the said Act, he may after giving such person an opportunity of being heard, by order in writing stating the grounds therefor, direct that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to him, and thereupon such person shall cease to be entitled to the exemption conferred by that sub-section. The warrant of arrest in question having been issued before the amendment is obviously not governed by this section. This warrant has clearly been issued, at least in part, for the amount for which, in my opinion, no warrant of arrest could be issued Mr. Mehra has, however, tried to justify the warrant of arrest on the ground that section 30 only applies to exemptions claimed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, but looking at the definition of "public dues" contained in S. 2 (d) of the Act, I think the exemption can safely be held to cover most of the loans in question. It is quite true that the petitioner has been trying to snatch at excuses for withholding payments of the loans legitimately due from him since the last several years, but in face of the provisions of the aforesaid Act I am constrained to allow this writ petition and quash the warrant of arrest in question. It is one of the basic and fundamental principles of our jurisprudence that on one can be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This has indeed been guaranteed by the Constitution as a substantive right. Unless therefore some provision of a valid substantive law empowers the authority concerned, on citizen can be deprived of his personal liberty; and this Court has been entrusted by the Constitution with the responsible task of jealously checking breaches of the said rule. As discussed above, the respondents have failed to justify their action in issuing the impugned warrant of arrest. It would certainly be open to the department to issue fresh warrant of arrest in accordance with law and if they want to utilise the amended section 30 the department will have to comply with the procedure laid down in the amended sub-section (2) of that section.