Haji MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN And Another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court as a habeas corpus petition filed concerning the detention of Haji Ghulam Mustafa, who was taken into custody by the Tehsildar, Multan, under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, for an outstanding amount owed by Amjad Rafiq, for whom the detenu stood as a guarantor. The core legal question is whether the detention of a guarantor under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for another person's liability warrants interference through a habeas corpus petition. The court held that the detention pursuant to proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is not illegal or improper, and therefore dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where detention is carried out under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, the aggrieved party must pursue remedies specifically provided under that statute rather than invoking habeas corpus jurisdiction.
- Whether detention of a guarantor under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 is illegal?
- Can a habeas corpus petition be maintained against an order of detention passed under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Where an adequate remedy is provided under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, should a constitutional petition for habeas corpus be entertained?
- Land Revenue Act, 1967
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the parawise comments appended with this petition it has been noticed that Haji Ghulam Mustafa had been detained through proceedings taken against him by the Tehsildar, Multan, under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 in respect of an outstanding amount due from one Amjad Rafiq. Haji Ghulam Mustafa had stood as guarantor for the liability of the above-mentioned Amjad Rafiq.
2. As Haji Ghulam Mustafa had been taken into custody on the basis of proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, therefore, his custody in that regard cannot be termed on illegal or improper for the purposes of the present petition find in the nature of habeas corpus. If the petitioner or the detenu feel aggrieved of the said impugned order of detention of Haji Ghulam Mustafa then they may seek their remedies provided in that regard in the Land Revenue Act,' 1967. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.