- (1.) SRI Sharad Madhyan, learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respon dents. They are heard.
(2.) THE short question involved in this petition for determination by this Court is whether a defaulter who has been detained in custody for a period of 15 days in respect of any arrear recoverable ar arrears of land revenue, can be arrested and detained again in a recovery proceeding relating to the same arrear. In short the facts relevant for deter mination of above- mentioned question as under: According to the petitioner a recovery notice dated 28-12-90 (An-nexure-4 to the writ petition) for an amount of Rs. 6,35,098. 77- (-inter est+10% recovery charges was issued to the petitioner and ultimately the Tehsil-dar, the respondent No. 2 passed order dated 5-1-93 (Annexure-5 to the writ peti tion) for petitioner's arrest under Section 285 of U. P. Z. A and L. R. Act (for short the Act) and Rule 235 of the Rules framed under the Act, pursuant to which petitioner was arrested and detained in Jail for 15 days and was released from the Jail on 19-1-93. This time again the respondent No. 2 has issued writ of demand and citation dated 14-6-96 raising the demand to Rs. 16,86,820. 00 for the same loan (vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition ). The respondents are trying to again arrest the petitioner in the recovery proceeding relating to the same arrear. Hence this petition.
(3.) THE controversy in dispute has been set at rest by a Division Bench of this Court in Sangam Lai Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer and others, 1969 ALJ 257, wherein taking into account the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and other allied provisions, it has been held that the period of fifteen days prescribed by Sec tion 148 of the Act is the maximum period for which a defaulter may be detained in custody in respect of any arrear. If he has been detained in custody for that period he cannot be arrested and detained again in a recovery proceeding relating to the same arrear of land revenue. However the ar rears can be recovered through other process other than arrest and detention. The above referred decision of this Court was taken into consideration by the apex Court in Ram Narayan Agarwal etc. , v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1984 SC 1213 and the same stands affirmed by the apex Court, though the actual controversy before the apex Court was a bit different.;