Skip to content


Dilbagh Singh Ganga Singh Vs. Tehsildar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1964CriLJ71
AppellantDilbagh Singh Ganga Singh
RespondentTehsildar and ors.
Excerpt:
.....sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........in all or any of the following modes. namely-(a) from the borrower - as if they were arrears of land-revenue due by him;(b) from his surety '(if any) - as if they were arrears of land-revenue due by him;(c) out of the land for the benefit of which the loan has been granted- as if they were arrears of land-revenue m respect of that land;(d) out of the property comprised in the collateral security (if any) according to the procedure for the realisation of land-revenue by the sale of the immovable property other than the land on which that revenue is due.* * * * *perusal of the above provision of law goes to show 'that in case default is made in payment of the loan the collector can proceed against the, borrower or his surety as if the loan constituted arrears of land revenue. in other.....
Judgment:
ORDER

H.R. Khanna, J.

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:-

7. (1) Subject to such rules as may be made Under Section 10, all loans granted under this Act, all Interest (if any) chargeable (thereon) and costs (if any) incurred in making the same, shall, when they become due, be recoverable by the Collector in all or any of the following modes. namely-

(a) from the borrower - as if they were arrears of land-revenue due by him;

(b) from his surety '(If any) - as if they were arrears of land-revenue due by him;

(c) out of the land for the benefit of which the loan has been granted- as if they were arrears of land-revenue m respect of that land;

(d) out of the property comprised In the collateral security (If any) according to the procedure for the realisation of land-revenue by the sale of the immovable property other than the land on which that revenue is due.* * * * *

Perusal of the above provision of law goes to show 'that In case default is made In payment of the loan the Collector can proceed against the, borrower or his surety as If the loan constituted arrears of land revenue. In other cases, the loan Is to be realised out of the land for the benefit of which the loan was granted as if it were arrears of land revenue In respect of that land or out of the property comprised In the collateral security if any. The petitioner was .admittedly not the borrower, nor did he stand surety at the time the loan was advanced. Ganga Singh, father of the petitioner, who took loan admittedly died in 1959. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against personally and be detained in jail because of default In payment of loan which was not taken by the petitioner but by his father.

The Collector can no doubt proceed against the land for the benefit of which the loan was granted, but it does not also authorise the Collector to proceed against the petitioner personally and order his detention because of the non-payment of the loan taken by the father of the petitioner. Section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act authorises a Revenue Officer and a Collector to order detention of a defaulter from whom arrears of land revenue are due. ins defaulter for the purposes of Section 7 of Act 19 of 1883 Is the actual borrower or his surety and not the son of the borrower. As such the Collector could not, in my view, proceed personally against the petitioner and direct his detention.

4. I accordingly hold that the detention of the petitioner Is not warranted by law and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //