Revenue recovery detention follows the special statute, and bona fide collection action bars original jurisdiction in habeas corpus.

A special revenue-recovery scheme under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876 was treated as controlling detention for recovery of income-tax arrears, because Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act created distinct recovery remedies and did not import the Civil Procedure Code's six-month detention limit. The Court also stated that the outer limit under Section 13 is fixed by that section itself. On jurisdiction, Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was said to exclude original jurisdiction in revenue matters and acts done in collection of revenue when the officer acted bona fide under claimed statutory authority, even if illegality or procedural irregularity was alleged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the maximum period of detention under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876 is controlled by the six-month limit in the Civil Procedure Code when income-tax arrears are recovered through the Collector. (ii) Whether the High Court's original jurisdiction was barred by Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935 in a habeas corpus application challenging detention ordered in the course of revenue recovery.

Issue (i): Whether the maximum period of detention under Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act, 1876 is controlled by the six-month limit in the Civil Procedure Code when income-tax arrears are recovered through the Collector.

Analysis: The power given to the Collector under Section 46(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act to recover arrears as an arrear of land revenue and also with the powers of a Civil Court creates two distinct remedies. Section 13 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act separately authorises attachment, sale, and, if necessary, confinement in civil jail, and its language does not incorporate the Civil Procedure Code limit on detention. The proviso in Section 13 fixes the outer limit at one day for each rupee recoverable, and the legislative scheme shows that the Collector may exercise the special revenue-recovery power independently of the civil execution limit.

Conclusion: The six-month limit in the Civil Procedure Code does not apply, and the period of detention under Section 13 is governed by that section itself.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's original jurisdiction was barred by Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935 in a habeas corpus application challenging detention ordered in the course of revenue recovery.

Analysis: Section 226 excludes original jurisdiction in matters concerning revenue or acts done in its collection according to the law for the time being in force. The Collector acted in the bona fide belief that he was proceeding under statutory authority for revenue recovery, and the challenged detention order was made in the course of such collection. The Court held that the bar operates even if the act is alleged to be illegal or procedurally irregular, so long as the officer honestly believed he was acting under the law. Since the Collector's affidavit showed such bona fide belief and mala fides were not pressed, the jurisdictional bar applied.

Conclusion: The application was barred by Section 226 and the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere.

Final Conclusion: Although the detention order was found unsustainable on the merits of the revenue-recovery procedure, the application failed because the constitutional bar on original jurisdiction in revenue matters prevented judicial interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special revenue-recovery statute prescribes its own detention scheme, that scheme governs unless expressly restricted by the civil execution code, and a High Court's original jurisdiction is excluded in revenue matters when the officer acted bona fide under claimed statutory authority, even if the act is alleged to be unlawful.

---