JUDGMENT R.S. Pathak, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by his arrest and detention in a proceeding for recovery of sales tax. He alleges that in proceedings for recovery of the tax he had already been arrested and detained for fifteen days in September, 1951, and contends that it is not open to the respondents to seek to recover the tax by arresting and detaining him again. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are of opinion that the contention must be upheld. 3. There was some dispute before us on the question whether the petitioner had been arrested and detained earlier as alleged by him, but upon the affidavits before us we are satisfied that his allegation should be accepted. The petitioner has sworn to his personal knowledge that he was so arrested and detained and there is nothing in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents to disprove that allegation. All that the respondents say is that there are no records in their possession to show that the petitioner had been arrested and detained earlier. 4. Proceeding then on the basis that the petitioner had already been arrested and detained in custody for fifteen days in September, 1951, the question which arises is whether he can be arrested and detained again in proceedings for recovery of the same tax liability. 5. Arrears of sales tax are liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 8 (1) read with Section 8 (8) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The recovery proceedings, admittedly, have been taken under the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. Section 148 of the said Act provides :- "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; ............" 6. The Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Revenue Department has made rules under the U. P. Land Revenue Act, and Chapter III of the Rules provides for the recovery of arrears of land revenue under the Act. Rule 51 provides :- "(1) Whenever a tahsildar causes a defaulter to be arrested, he shall without delay report the fact for the information of the Collector and Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division. Rule 51 provides :- "(1) Whenever a tahsildar causes a defaulter to be arrested, he shall without delay report the fact for the information of the Collector and Assistant Collector-in-charge of the sub-division. (2) After arrest, a defaulter shall be brought without delay before the officer who issued the warrant and shall not be detained in custody unless there is reason to believe that the process of detention will compel the payment of the whole or a substantial portion of the arrear. If an order for detention is passed, it shall specify the date on which the detention will cease if the arrear is not sooner paid. (3) If the officer who issued the warrant sees fit, when the defaulter is produced before him to give him further time to pay the an-ear instead of detaining him he may release the defaulter on his undertaking to pay the arrear within the period fixed. Should it become necessary to arrest the defaulter again, a fresh Warrant in Form III (R. D. Form No. 5) shall invariably be issued, and a separate fee levied. When a warrant has been once executed by the arrest of the defaulter, the same warrant cannot be executed a second time." 7. It is clear that what is contemplated by the Act and the rules is an attempt to recover the an-ear of land revenue by the arrest and detention in custody of the defaulter. Upon the arrest of the defaulter he has to be brought before the officer who issued the wan-ant of arrest, and rule 51 (2) provides that the defaulter shall be detained in custody only where there is reason to believe that the process of detention will result in the payment of the whole or a substantial portion of the arrear. Moreover, when the defaulter is produced before the officer who issued the warrant, there may be circumstances justifying the belief that if further time is given to the defaulter the arrear may be paid up and accordingly the officer is empowered to release the defaulter on his undertaking to pay the arrear within a specified period. If, however the defaulter does not honour the undertaking, he is liable to be arrested again. But, in our opinion, the total period for which he may be detained in custody in respect of the same arrear cannot exceed fifteen days. If, however the defaulter does not honour the undertaking, he is liable to be arrested again. But, in our opinion, the total period for which he may be detained in custody in respect of the same arrear cannot exceed fifteen days. Section 148 declares that a defaulter may be detained in custody for fifteen days unless the arrear and the costs of arrest and detention, are paid before the expiry of that period. There is nothing in the provision from which we can infer that the defaulter may be detained in custody for repeated periods of fifteen days until the arrear is paid up. If that inference was possible, we would have to hold that the detaining authority is entitled, so long as it believes that the process of detention would result in the payment of the arrear, to detain the defaulter in custody almost indefinitely provided the successive periods of detention did not exceed fifteen days at a time. A construction such as this would result in serious encroachment upon the liberty of the citizen, and we are not prepared to accept that so unlimited an arbitrary power was intended to be conferred upon the detaining authority, specially when the power to detain has been conferred, under rule 47, even upon a tahsildar and when the only reason for detention is the possibility of the payment of an arrear of land revenue. In our judgment, the period of fifteen days prescribed by Section 148 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. 8. In the circumstances, we consider it unnecessary to decide the other issues raised upon this petition. 9. The petition is allowed. The proceedings for the arrest and detention of the petitioner are quashed. The respondents are restrained from attempting the recovery of the tax liability in question by the further arrest and detention of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 100/-.