IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3232 of 2001 Between: Beeravolu Suguna Devi and another. … Petitioners. And: The District Collector & Competent Authority, Warangal, Warangal District and five others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Kamalakar for Sri Ch.Poornachandra Rao. Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue for R.1 to R.3. None for R.4 to R.6. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3232 of 2001 ORDER: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) In this Writ Petition, the petitioners assailed order, dated 17-1-2001, passed by the District Collector & Competent Authority, Warangal, respondent No.1 herein, whereby he attached the property bearing House No.2-16-1032, situated in K.L.N.Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, standing in the name of petitioner No.1; and the landed properties admeasuring Ac.20.23 guntas and Ac.11.28 guntas situated in Chityal and Kailapur villages respectively standing in the names of the petitioners and the son of petitioner No.1. The son of petitioner No.1, by name, Beeravolu Ramachandra Reddy was the Managing Partner of the Firm-M/s. Uma Financiers (for short “the Firm”). Petitioner No.2 is a partner of the said Firm. On the complaints made by respondents 4 to 6 under the provisions of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short “the Act”), respondent No.1 passed the impugned order attaching various properties, including House No.2-16-1032, standing in the name of petitioner No.1, and seized the same. At the hearing, Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order to the extent of seizing the property bearing House No.2-16-1032, K.L.N.Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, standing in the name of petitioner No.1, is illegal because petitioner No.1 was never a partner of the Firm, which collected the deposits from respondents 4 to 6 and others. He further stated that respondent No.1 has not issued any notice to petitioner No.1 before attaching the said property. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner No.1 was also a party to O.S.No.132 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The said suit was filed by respondents 5 and 6 for recovery of the amounts deposited by them with the Firm. It is an admitted fact that petitioner No.1 suffered a decree along with the other partners of the Firm. The question whether the house property referred to above was the self-acquired property of the husband of petitioner No.1 and if so whether the same is not liable for being proceeded with under the provisions of the Act is required to be decided by respondent No.1 on petitioner No.1 furnishing appropriate evidence. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate this issue in this Writ Petition. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner No.1 to approach respondent No.1 with an appropriate application. If respondent No.1 is satisfied that the house property standing in the name of petitioner No.1 is not liable for seizure, he shall pass appropriate orders for its release. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ., C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt.21-10-2009 MNR