IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 21136 of 2001 Between: D.Dayakar Reddy, S/o. D.Chenna Krishna Reddy, R/o. H.No.9-7-7, Yadagiri Nagar, Road No.3, Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy tahsildar-cum-Recovery Officer, S.B.H.Zoal Office, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Manager, Allahabad Bank, Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Mandamus' declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing the Distraint Order dated. 3.10.2001 against the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and also direct the Respondent not to proceed further pursuant to the Distraint Order in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Petition No.21136_of 2001 ORDER: The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issue of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the Distraint Order dated 3.10.2001 against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted the interim suspension of the impugned order. No counter has been filed. The petitioner is an educated unemployee. He applied for Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’) for the year 1995-1996 as he was selected in the said scheme. He underwent training in the course of Entrepreneurship Development Training under the Scheme sponsored by the Commissioner of Industries, Government of A.P., conducted by the A.P. Productivity Council from 6.12.1995 to 26.12.1995 and he became eligible for receiving the loan amount for starting the establishment. He was sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.75,000/- for establishment of Xerox machine, and it was paid through the 2nd respondent bank. He paid three installments regularly, thereafter, he could not pay the installments, for the reason that, due to power fluctuations, instruments burnt away, and it is his case that as there was no further investment available to him, he could not revise the same. It is stated that all of sudden without providing an opportunity, a distraint order dated 3.10.2001 under Revenue Recovery Act (for short ‘the Act’) was served on him seeking for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,21,843/-. His case is that, the distraint order issued is highly un called for as no demand notice was served and was ever communicated to him during last 5 ½ years and without providing him an opportunity, issuing the present order, is highly illegal and the same is liable to be set aside under Section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, from the above averments, it is clear that the case of the writ petitioner is that, no notice was given to him, prior to issuance of impugned distraint order. No counter affidavit was also filed, controverting this aspect. Hence, it is necessary to look into Section 25 of Revenue Recovery Act. The same is extracted as under:- Section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act reads as under:- “Demand to be served prior to attachment of land –Mode of service:-- Before a Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector on that behalf proceeds to attach the land of the defaulter, or buildings thereon, he shall cause a written demand to be served upon the defaulter, specifying the amount due, the estate or land in respect of which it is claimed, the name of the party in arrear, the batta due to the person who shall serve the demand, and the time allowed for payment, which shall be fixed with reference to the dispute from the land on which the arrear is due to the place at which the money is to be paid. Such demand shall be served by delivering a copy to the defaulter, or to some adult male member of his family at his usual place of abode, or to his authorized agent, or by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of his last known residence, or on some conspicuous part of the land about to be attached.” From the above, Section 25 of the Act, it is clear that before proceeding to attach the property for committing default, a demand notice shall be served on the defaulter. In the present case, as noted above, no such notice has been served on the petitioner, before issuing the impugned distraint order. This amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned distraint order dated 3.10.2001 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. However, it is made clear that it is always open to the authorities to pass appropriate orders, after following due process of law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:20.11.2008 mrb