- (1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the recovery proceeding in respect of a loan taken by him. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended, that the Petitioner having already been kept in detention for a period of 15 days, cannot be re -arrested for the recovery of the same loan. He has relied on the decision in Sangam Lal Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer, 1969 AWR 275. in that case the quest ion about the interpretation of Section 148 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act came up for consideration. That section provided that "the defaulter may be arrested and detained in custody for fifteen days, unless the arrear, and the costs of arrest and detention, are sooner paid...." Section 281 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is in similar terms. It provides: Any person who has defaulted in the payment of an arrear of land revenue may be arrested and detained in custody upto a period not exceeding 15 days unless the arrears including cost, if any, recoverable under Sub -section (2) of Section 279 are sooner paid. In view of the decision in Sangam Lal Gupta's case (supra) the Petitioner cannot be arrested again for the recovery of the same loan.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the Respondents are also proceeding to recover the amount of loan as arrears of land revenue by attachment and sale of immovable property of the Petitioner, but for some reason or the other it has not yet been sold. There is no bar to the amount of loan being recovered in the manner the Respondents are trying to recover it. The only bar is that if the Petitioner has already been under arrest for 15 days, he cannot be arrested again for the recovery of the same amount. In the result, we allow the petition in part and direct that the Petitioner shall not be arrested again for the recovery of the amount in dispute provided he has already been in detention for a period of 15 days. Costs on parties.;