Haji MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN, RECOVERY
This matter arises from a habeas corpus petition filed before the Lahore High Court 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 liability owed by Amjad Rafiq, for whom the detenu stood as a guarantor. The core legal question addressed is whether the detention of a guarantor under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for recovery of dues is illegal or improper so as to warrant interference through a habeas corpus petition. The Court held that the custody of the detenu pursuant to statutory land revenue proceedings cannot be termed illegal or improper, and dismissed the petition while observing that the petitioner or detenu must pursue remedies provided within the Land Revenue Act, 1967. The key principle laid down is that habeas corpus proceedings cannot be invoked to challenge a detention originating from lawful recovery proceedings under the Land Revenue Act when alternative statutory remedies exist.
- Whether the detention of a guarantor under the Land Revenue Act, 1967 for an outstanding amount is illegal or improper?
- Can a habeas corpus petition be maintained against an order of detention passed under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Where an aggrieved person has remedies provided under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, should a constitutional petition in the nature of habeas corpus be entertained?
- Land Revenue Act, 1967
ORDER
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 abovementioned 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 as illegal or improper for the purposes of the present petition filed 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.