THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.744 of 2008 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of notice, dated 12.11.2007, issued by the third respondent–Tahsildar, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District, in Rc.No.B/315/2007, directing him to pay an amount of Rs.16,57,685/- along with penal interest within four (4) days from the date of its receipt. The brief facts of the case are that a notification was issued by the first respondent-District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Krishna, Machilipatnam, on 14.09.2000, for holding public auction for grant of leasehold rights for sale of sand in respect of Reach No.20 of K.Kothapalem Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District, for the period commencing from 01.10.2000 to 30.09.2001. Due to litigations by the third parties, the auction was not conducted, and finally, it was re-notified on 04.10.2000 and the auction was held on 23.10.2000. Petitioner was the highest bidder with an amount of Rs.11,58,000/- and he entered into an agreement on 04.11.2000 for the lease period commencing from 04.11.2000 to 30.09.2001 for the first year, and consequently, work orders were issued on 04.11.2000. The second year lease was also granted to him for Rs.12,73,800/-, for the period from 01.10.2001 to 30.09.2002 with an enhancement at the rate of 10% over the bid value of the first year lease. Attributing delay in execution of lease agreements, the petitioner was claiming extension of lease for 35 days in the first year and 43 days in the second year. When he was not allowed to operate the quarry beyond the period of lease, he filed O.S.No.63 of 2002 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. In the said suit, at first instance, he filed I.A.No.421 of 2002 and obtained injunction orders on 04.09.2002 restraining the respondents therein from auctioning the sand quarrying in Reach No.20. He also filed I.A.No.499 of 2002 and obtained orders on 01.10.2002 directing the respondents therein for furnishing waybill books to him. Ultimately, in I.A.No.421 of 2002, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, in view of the plea of respondents therein that under the guise of injunction orders the petitioner continued the quarry operations beyond the lease period, passed orders on 19.01.2004 dismissing the said I.A. with an observation that the respondents therein are entitled to claim damages from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it appears, the petitioner continued the sand quarry operations up to 18.01.2004. Thereafter, the 1st respondent-District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Krishna District, the 2nd respondent- Chairman, District Sand Auction Committee, Krishna and the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District, have filed O.S.No.2 of 2007 before the learned Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, against the petitioner, for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,57,685/- along with interest, mainly on the ground that under the guise of injunction orders obtained by him in I.A.No.421 of 2002 in O.S.No.63 of 2002, he continued the quarry operations up to 18.01.2004. In O.S.No.2 of 2007, the petitioner has already filed written statement, denying the allegation that he continued the sand quarry operations up to 18.01.2004. When the said suit is pending consideration, it appears, pursuant to the observations of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, in his order, dated 19.01.2004 in I.A.No.421 of 2002, on the ground that the petitioner has illegally continued the quarry operations for 475 days, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 09.10.2007 in Roc.3156/2002 Pts.4, directing the 3rd respondent to recover an amount of Rs.16,57,685/- from him, along with penal interest, by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Consequently, the impugned notice is issued by the 3rd respondent demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.16,57,685/- along with interest. In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that when a similar claim is already pending adjudication in O.S.No.2 of 2007, it is not open for the respondents to recover the aforesaid amount from him. Counter-affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, it is stated that taking advantage of the orders passed in I.A.No.421 of 2002 in O.S.No.63 of 2002, the petitioner has continued the quarry operations till 19.01.2004. It is also stated that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, while dismissing I.A.No.421 of 2002 on 19.01.2004, observed that the Government is entitled to recover the lease amount, if the petitioner has excavated the sand beyond the lease period. In view of the same, notices were issued to the petitioner, but, as he failed to pay the amount, proceedings, dated 09.10.2007, were issued by the 1st respondent directing the 3rd respondent to recover an amount of Rs.16,57,685/- along with interest from the petitioner, under the Revenue Recovery Act. During the course of hearing, it is fairly submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appearing for respondents, that no orders are passed by any competent authority under the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, determining the liability of the petitioner, so as to recover an amount of Rs.16,57,685/-. It is submitted that the lease itself came to an end by 30.09.2002, but in spite of the same, under the guise of injunction orders obtained by the petitioner in I.A.No.421 of 2002 in O.S.No.63 of 2002, he continued the quarry operations up to 18.01.2004. It is true that in his order, dated 19.01.2004, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, while dismissing I.A.No.421 of 2002 in O.S.No.63 of 2002, observed that the Government is entitled to recover damages from the petitioner, if he continued the quarry operations beyond the lease period. Pursuant to the said observations, respondents 1 and 2 and another, have filed O.S.No.2 of 2007 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.16,57,685/- along with penal interest. However, it is to be noticed that there is no order determining the liability of petitioner. It is fairly well settled that unless the liability of an individual is determined by giving him an opportunity of hearing, the authorities cannot recover any amount from him by resorting to the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act. A perusal of the copies of the plaint and written statement in O.S.No.2 of 2007 indicate that with the same set of allegations, on the ground that the petitioner has illegally continued the quarry operations up to the date of dismissal of I.A.No.421 of 2002 in O.S.No.63 of 2002, respondents 1 and 2 and another have filed O.S.No.2 of 2007 for recovery of Rs.16,57,685/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In the written statement filed in the said suit, the petitioner has clearly denied the allegation of his carrying on the quarry operations beyond the lease period, by pleading that he has suffered loss due to non- issuance of work orders from the date of notification and also the waybills for transportation of sand during the lease period. As the petitioner has defended the allegations levelled against him, this Court is of the view that it is a triable issue, on which, findings are to be recorded only after adducing evidence on the said aspect. When the suit is pending consideration before the competent civil Court, it is not open for the respondents herein to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.16,57,685/- with interest, by issuing the impugned notice, pursuant to the proceedings, dated 09.10.2007, issued by the 1st respondent. Even such proceedings are issued in the shape of a letter, instructing the 3rd respondent to recover such amount under the Revenue Recovery Act, but, there is no order determining the liability of the petitioner, in the absence of which, it is not known how could such directions were issued to the 3rd respondent to recover the amount from the petitioner, more so, when similar claim is pending adjudication in O.S.No.2 of 2007. It is un-understandable as to how the petitioner was allowed to continue the quarry operations even after expiry of the lease period. It appears, there were lapses on the part of officers concerned in not seeking vacation of the injunction orders immediately after expiry of the lease period. In any event, in the absence of any order determining the liability by any authority under the provisions of the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, to recover such amount and when similar claim is pending consideration in the suit filed by the respondents herein in O.S.No.2 of 2007, it is not open for the respondents to seek for recovery of Rs.16,57,685/- along with penal interest from the petitioner by issuing the impugned notice. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the notice, dated 12.11.2007, is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that O.S.No.2 of 2007 filed by respondents 1 and 2 and another, for recovery of Rs.16,57,685/- along with interest from the petitioner, is to be adjudicated without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th DECEMBER, 2011. kvni/ajr