THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 7943 of 2002 Dated: 9-12-2010 Between: U.M.S.Ballanna …Petitioner And The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool and another …Respondents. Oral order: The writ petition is filed aggrieved by a notice bearing reference No. 381/1998, dated 2-4-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay Rs.6,13,979/- into the Government Treasury pursuant to the orders dated 17-1-2002 issued by the District Collector, Kurnool for recovery of the said amount payable to the MACT, Kurnool. The petitioner was the owner of a lorry, which met with an accident. Thereafter the petitioner suffered losses and claims to have disposed of the lorry to meet his financial crisis and to liquidate the losses, in 1993. The persons injured in the accident approached the MACT seeking compensation in MVOP No. 108 of 1991. The claim was allowed against the petitioner, a respondent therein. E.P.No. 8 of 1994, which was filed before the District Court, Kurnool was closed on the ground that the claimant failed to establish sufficient means of the owner of the lorry to clear the award amount. Thereafter steps were initiated to recover the same under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and the 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice. The petitioner claims that he has no means whether movable or immovable property and proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot therefore be initiated against him and that under the guise of a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, the respondents are harassing him. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit whereat it is stated that on enquiry it is revealed that the petitioner has no movable or immovable properties against which the proceedings can be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act for realization of the amounts due and payable under the award in O.P.No. 108 of 1991 and no action is being taken to attach the property as there is no property available to be attached. In view of the averments in the counter-affidavit, the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th December, 2010. GRR