Recovery of bill as arrear of land revenue | Electricity company can't recover electricity bill as arrear of land revenue as long as the amount was not determined by any competent court.
بے شک! فراہم کردہ تفصیلات پر مبنی کیس کی کہانی
یہ ہے:
### پس منظر
محمد شکیل نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ ملتان بنچ میں ایک رٹ پٹیشن (ڈبلیو پی نمبر 6368 آف 2024) دائر کی جس میں ڈپٹی کمشنر کی جانب سے لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ 1967 کے تحت اپنے والد عبدالغفور کی نظر بندی کو چیلنج کیا گیا۔ مبینہ طور پر بجلی کے واجبات ادا نہ کیے گئے 83,56,398/- MEPCO (ملتان الیکٹرک پاور کمپنی) کی طرف سے عائد۔
### کیس کے اہم نکات
1. **بجلی کا کنکشن اور واجبات**: بجلی کا میٹر اصل میں محمد شکیل کے دادا اللہ بخش کے نام پر نصب کیا گیا تھا، جو انتقال کر گئے تھے۔ درخواست گزار نے استدلال کیا کہ میپکو کی جانب سے دعویٰ کی گئی بقایا رقم کا قانونی طور پر تعین نہیں کیا گیا اور متنازعہ نہیں۔
2. **قانونی کارروائی**: ایک مختلف رٹ پٹیشن (نمبر 19439/2023) کے تحت عدالت میں بجلی کے اسی واجبات سے متعلق پیشگی قانونی چیلنجز چل رہے تھے، جو ابھی تک زیر التواء تھی۔
3. **حراست اور قانونی بنیاد**: ڈپٹی کمشنر نے لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ 1967 کے تحت نوٹس جاری کیے اور بعد ازاں مبینہ واجبات کی ادائیگی میں ناکامی پر عبدالغفور کو حراست میں لے لیا۔ درخواست گزار نے استدلال کیا کہ اس طرح کی حراست اور کارروائی غیر قانونی ہے کیونکہ واجب الادا رقم کا تعین مجاز دائرہ اختیار کی عدالت نے نہیں کیا تھا۔
### عدالتی کارروائی اور فیصلہ
1. **دلائل**: عدالتی کارروائی کے دوران، میپکو اور واپڈا کے قانونی نمائندوں نے نظر بندی کا دفاع کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ 1967 کے سیکشن 82(1) کے تحت، انہیں یہ اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ بقایا رقم وصول کر سکیں۔ پیشگی عدالت کا فیصلہ
2. **قانونی نظیریں**: درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے مختلف قانونی نظیروں کا حوالہ دیا، جن میں ایسے معاملات بھی شامل ہیں جہاں عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا تھا کہ لینڈ ریونیو کے بقایا جات کے طور پر واجبات کی وصولی کے لیے مجاز عدالت کی جانب سے رقم کا قبل از وقت تعین ضروری ہے۔
3. **عدالت کا فیصلہ**: دلائل اور قانونی نظیروں پر غور کرنے کے بعد، لاہور ہائی کورٹ، ملتان بینچ نے محمد شکیل کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا۔ عدالت نے لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ 1967 کے سیکشن 81 اور 82 کے تحت عبدالغفور کی نظر بندی کو غیر قانونی اور قانونی اثر کے بغیر قرار دیا۔ عدالت نے عبدالغفور کو فوری رہا کرنے کا حکم دے دیا۔
### نتیجہ
اس کیس نے حکومتی حکام کی جانب سے بقایا رقم کی وصولی میں مناسب عمل کی اہمیت کو اجاگر کیا۔ اس نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ جب تک مجاز دائرہ اختیار کی عدالت کی طرف سے رقم کا تعین نہ کیا جائے، اسے لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ 1967 کے تحت زمینی محصول کے بقایا جات کے طور پر وصول نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ مناسب عدالتی عمل کے ذریعے قانونی اجازت۔
اگر آپ کے پاس کیس کے کوئی خاص پہلو ہیں تو آپ مزید یا کوئی اور سوال پوچھنا چاہتے ہیں، بلا جھجھک پوچھیں!
Judgement
FORM No. HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT
MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No. 6368 of 2024
Muhammad Shakeel
Vs.
Deputy Commissioner, etc.
Sr. No. of
order/
proceedings
Date of
order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
Parties’ counsel, where necessary
30.05.2024 Mr. Muhammad Aurangzaib Khan, Advocate for
petitioner.
Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney
General for Pakistan.
Ms. Samina Mehmood Rana and Mr.
Muhammad Bukhsh Khakhi, AAGs.
Malik Mureed Hussain Makwal, Advocate/Legal
Advisor for MEPCO.
Through this petition, petitioner has called
in question the action of respondents whereby in
compliance of notice dated 18.05.2024, father of
petitioner has been detained by adopting procedure
of Land Revenue Act, 1967 for recovery of
outstanding amount without its determination by
the court of competent jurisdiction.
2.
The claim of the petitioner is that Electricity
meter bearing Reference No. 29152630591500R
was installed in the name of grandfather of the
petitioner namely Allah Bakhsh s/o Ahmed Khan
(who has passed away), regarding the said
electricity meter an illegal amount as arrears
amounting Rs.83,56,398/- was imposed by the
respondents/MEPCO, the said act of the
respondents was called in question by the legal
heirs of the Allah Bakhsh through Writ Petition
No.19439/2023 tilted as "Muhammad Ibrahim etc
Versus WAPDA etc." before this Court, which is
W.P. No. 6368 of 2024
2
still under adjudication. However, side by side, the
respondent No.3 firstly issued notice Under
Section 82(1) of the Land Revenue Act 1967 for
recovery of aforementioned amount in the name of
Allah Bakhsh s/o Ahmad Khan on 14.05.2024 and
subsequently the respondent No.3 issued notice
dated 16.05.2024 in the name of detenue (father of
the petitioner namely Abdul Ghafoor) with the
subject for detention of the defaulter of MEPCO
Circle Dera Ghazi Khan, with the warning to the
detenue for payment of aforementioned liability of
MEPCO, furthermore, vide notice dated
18.05.2024 the detenue is being detained for 30-
days. It is claimed that the impugned act of the
respondents for initiating the recovery proceedings
against the detenue/father of petitioner, the
issuance of detention notice/order and all ancillary
proceedings are illegal, against the law, facts,
without lawful authority, without lawful
justification and the same are nullity in the eye of
law, hence, are liable to be set aside.
3.
Notice was issued to respondents in
response to which learned Legal Advisor for
MEPCO has entered appearance to contest the case
on behalf of MEPCO and WAPDA. Both the
Assistant Attorney General and the Learned Law
Officer have defended the order of arrest of father
of petitioner in compliance of notice dated
18.05.2024 for recovery of WAPDA dues as
arrears or Land Revenue.
4.
The Learned counsel for the respondents
have been confronted the question as to whether
the afore-referred amount has been got determined
from any court of competent jurisdiction, in
W.P. No. 6368 of 2024
3
response to which learned Legal Advisor states
that respondent authorities themselves are the final
Authorities to determine the outstanding amount,
against which notice was issued to father of the
petitioner under Section 82(1) of Land Revenue
Act, 1967 for recovery of said amount and on his
failure to make payment of outstanding dues,
father of petitioner has been arrested.
5.
Needless to mention that the claim of the
petitioner is that amount sought to be recovered
from the father of the petitioner has not yet been
determined and the electricity connection has not
been installed in the name of father of the
petitioner rather in the name of his grandfather and
liability against the father has not been established
in any case, hence recovery from his father is not
sustainable.
6.
The question of recovery of dues of
electricity department as arrears of land revenue
came up for hearing before courts in various cases.
7.
In case titled
Water and Power
Development Authority versus Umaid Khan
reported as [1988 CLC 501 (Lahore)] the question
related to recovery of enhanced dues where
demand notice had been issued by Authority to
consumer having evaluated cost of material to be
supplied to him for giving him electric connection
when Authority had reserved no right that amount
demanded through notice could be enhanced
unilaterally or on account of enhancement in price
of material. This Court held that the Authority
would not be entitled to recover amount
subsequently enhanced unilaterally by it on pretext
that price of material supplied to consumer had
W.P. No. 6368 of 2024
4
gone up as amount sought to be recovered from
consumer was neither due from him nor
outstanding against him, hence Authority would
not be entitled to recover amount from consumer
as arrears of land revenue under Section 54-A of
Electricity Act, 1910.
8.
In case titled Shamim-ud-Din versus
Federal Government of Pakistan through
Chairman WAPDA, Lahore and 4 others reported
as [1995 CLC 299 (Lahore)], detention of the
detenue was declared to be without lawful
authority and detenue was set at liberty while
holding that a Director of limited company could
not be detained for recovery of charges of supply
of energy recoverable as arrears of land revenue
whereas the Company could be proceeded against
in accordance with law.
9.
In case titled Pakistan Industrial Credit and
Investment Corporation Ltd. versus Ali Gul Khan
reported as (1989 CLC 1774) the Peshawar High
Court while considering a question of recovery of
electricity dues as arrears of Land revenue held
that Water and Power Development Authority is
neither empowered to levy any cess nor falls
within the definition of term ‘State’. Authority is
empowered only to charge the consumers of
electricity for the energy supplied to them and that
is also the position under Section 54-A of
Electricity Act, 1910. Authority’s charges for the
supply of electricity do not come within the
definition of a tax or a cess and amounts to be
recovered by the Authority may be deemed to be
the charges for services rendered. Charges of
Authority were neither land revenue nor arrears of
P. No. 6368 of 2024
5
land revenue but simply charges under the
provisions of Section 54-A of Electricity Act,
1910. Such charges have been made recoverable as
arrears of land revenue but mere fact that the
charges of Authority have been made recoverable
as arrears of land revenue does not mean that such
sums have become land revenue or any
Government dues.
10. The Sindh High Court in case titled Mst.
Shanti versus Karachi Transport Corporation
and others (2000 CLC 595), which considering the
scope of provisions of Section 79 & 80 of West
Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 relating to
Recovery of Government dues as arrears of land
revenue observed that all the provisions of law
which authorize any statutory authority to recover
any amount as arrears of land revenue can be
invoked only after determination of the amount of
dues as fixed ascertained and determined sum of
money.
11. This Court in case titled Muhammad
Siddique versus Khawaja Maqbool Ahmad, NaibTehsildar (Revenue), Kot Adu and 3 others [2000
PCrLJ 17 (Lahore)] while considering the liability
of a particular person to be liable to proceedings
under Land Revenue Act, 1967 for recovery of
dues held that no person other than the owner of
the land was liable to pay Agricultural Income tax
in his lifetime and detenue who was a tenant on the
land could not be held liable to pay tax in default
of the owner and was set at liberty especially when
no proceedings for recovery as arrears of Land
revenue started against the owners.
W.P. No. 6368 of 2024
6
12. This Court in case titled Muhammad Jamil
Shahid versus Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity
WAPDA, Muridke reported as [1997 PCrLJ 863
(Lahore)] in a Habeas corpus petition under
section 491 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
challenging detention of detenue under Sections 81
and 82 of West Pakistan land revenue Act (XVII
of 1967) for non-payment of arrears of electricity
charges held that arrest and detention of any
person under Section 82 of the West Pakistan land
revenue Act, 1967 could not take place without
having issued to him a prior notice in terms of
Section 81 thereof. No such notice was issued to
the detenue and even the amount regarding arrears
of electricity charges due against him was not
determined, Detention of detenue, in the
circumstances, was illegal and he was directed to
be set at liberty accordingly.
13. From the perusal of the aforementioned case
law it is apparent that by now it is settled that
unless an amount is determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the same cannot be
recovered as arears of land revenue. Reliance in
this behalf is also placed upon judgments reported
as “Mukhtar Ahmad Bhatti Vs. Deputy Director
Food Bahawalpur, etc.” (2007 MLD 324),
“Muhammad Jamil Shahid Vs. Sub-Divisional
Officer, etc.” (1997 P.Cr.L.J 863), “Abdul Karim
Vs. Province of Sindh through Secretary,
Communication and Works and 03 others” (2001
MLD 69), Messrs Pakistan Pipe and
Construction Company Limited v. City
Mukhtiarkar, Karachi East and others (PLD
1984 Kar. 28), Muhammad Akbar Cheema v.
W.P. No. 6368 of 2024
7
Province of West Pakistan and another (1984
SCMR 1047), Agricultural Development Bank of
Pakistan v. Sanaullah Khan and others (PLD
1988 SC 67), Mumtaz Ahmed Silk Mills Limited
v. District Sindh Employees' Social Security
Institution and another (1987 CLC 2531),
Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Azam, (1989
SCMR 1419) and Messrs Health Construction
Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v, Faisalabad Development
Authority, Faisalabad (1995 CLC 1877).
14. In the present case proceedings under Land
Revenue Act for recovery of dues as arrears have
been initiated without getting determination of
liability from any forum of competent jurisdiction
including court of law. Besides, the procedure
envisaged under Section 81 and 82 of Land
Revenue Act, 1967 has also not been properly
adopted, therefore, this petition is allowed with the
result that arrest and detention of father of
petitioner in terms of Sections 81 and 82 of Land
Revenue Act, 1967 without determination of
outstanding amount from any court of competent
jurisdiction is declared to be illegal and without
any legal effect, consequently the same is set
aside. Father of the petitioner shall be released
forthwith.
(Muzamil Akhtar Shabir)
Judge
Comments
Post a Comment