THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12634 of 2005 Dated: 11.11.2010 Between: Swarna Narasimha Rao and others. .. Petitioners. And The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing notice of attachment and public auction dated 11.04.2005 in respect of the lands to an extent of Ac.5.18 gts., Ac.5.07 gts., Ac.5.07 gts. and Ac.20 gts. in Sy.Nos.263/AA, 410/A, 410/AA and 410/E respectively situated at Rajalingala, H/o. Burdaraghavapuram village, Enkur Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. Under the impugned notice dated 11.04.2005, in all an extent of Ac.18.12 gts. of land, belonging to the petitioners and their brother Swarna Srinivas Rao, was sought to be attached and sold in public auction, towards recovery of excise arrears of Rs.5,88,842/- from the said Swarna Srinivas Rao. It is the case of the petitioners that Swarna Srinivas Rao is their elder brother and he is one of the shareholders of the lands in question, which are sought to be attached and sold under the impugned notice. The main grievance of the petitioners is that since the lands in question are joint family properties, in respect of which no partition has been affected so far, they cannot be subjected to public auction by the respondents on the ground that Swarna Srinivas Rao is liable to pay excise arrears to them. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands sought to be attached and sold under the impugned notice are not the individual properties of the said Swarna Srinivas Rao, who is stated to have committed default of payment of excise arrears to the respondents, and therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the lands in question are the individual properties of Swarna Srinivas Rao, who failed to pay excise arrears of Rs.5,88,842/- to the respondents, they sought to attach the same and put them to sale in public auction under the impugned notice. Except saying that the lands in question belong to Swarna Srinivas Rao, no material has been placed by the respondents in support of their contention. However, a perusal of the documents, produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would indicate that only some small extents of the subject lands are recorded as individual properties of the said Swarna Srinivas Rao. The impugned notice clearly shows that the entire lands in question i.e., Ac.18.12 gts. are put to auction, instead of notifying the lands which are in the name of the said Swarna Srinivas Rao, the defaulter of excise arrears. This itself shows that the respondents have not applied their mind before passing the impugned notice and, therefore, the impugned notice does not stand scrutiny of law and requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice dated 11.04.2005 issued by the 4th respondent. However, this does not preclude the respondents from proceeding against the individual properties of Swarna Srinivas Rao, the alleged defaulter, as per law. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.11.2010 v v