IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3164 of 2002 Between: 1.Uppalli Jyothi, w/o. U. Devadasu, Adi Andhra Christian Female, aged about 32 years, House wife, r/o. Door No.1-333 (old no.1-188/2) Teachers colony, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari district. 2. Uppalli Devadasu, s/o Nagulu, Adi Andhra Christian Female, aged about 39 years, r/o. Door No.1-333 (old no.1-188/2) Teachers colony, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari district. ..... PETITIONER AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, East Godavari district. .....RESPONDENT 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned notice issued by the respondent under section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act dated 11-2-2002 served on the petitioner no.2 on 15-2-2002 proposing to attach petitioner no.1’s RCC Slab building bearing assessment no.354, and Door No.1- 333 (old door no.1-188/2), Ramanayyapeta village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari district, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction for the respondent and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the said impugned notice or to pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Division Bench of this Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. WRIT PETITION No. 3 1 6 4 OF 2002. O R D E R : { Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari } The writ petition is filed by the wife of the appellant in WA.No.138 of 2001 and also the second petitioner herein, who is the husband of the first petitioner, who died during the pendency of the writ petition and hence the writ petition abates against the second petitioner, Uppalli Devadasu. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the impugned notice issued by the respondent under section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act dated 11-2-2002 served on the petitioner no.2 on 15-2-2002 proposing to attach petitioner no.1’s RCC Slab building bearing assessment no.354, and Door No.1-333 (old door no.1-188/2), Ramanayyapeta village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari district, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction for the respondent and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the said impugned notice or to pass any suitable orders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The facts of the case are that the first petitioner herein is the wife of second petitioner. The first petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the house property bearing door no. 1-333 (old door no.1-188/2) situated in Teachers Colony, Ramanayyapet, Kakinada, East Godavari district. She purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 24-12-1999 by obtaining a loan of Rs.90,000/- from the Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited, Kakinada by mortgaging the said house property and by utilizing money earned by her by preaching on Christian religion. She also received monies from her parents in addition to that for meeting the sale consideration for the same house property. Since, she could not discharge the mortgage debt of the Kakinada Co-operative Town Bank Limited, Kakinada, the said Bank has filed a suit before the Deputy Registrar under the AP Co-operative Societies Act, Kakinada. The suit filed by the said bank is pending. Be that as it may, the second petitioner herein, who worked as Sarpanch of Ramanayyapeta Gram Panchayat was removed from his post with false allegation that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.21,57,038/- by passing an order without conducting any inquiry. Against the said order, WP.No.993 of 2001 was filed and the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge. Against the orders in WP.No.993 of 2001, WA.No.138 of 2001 was filed. 4. It is stated that in the audit conducted for the years 1999- 2000 for the said Ramanayyapeta village it is found that only the Executive Officer of the village is responsible for such irregularities in Panchayat management and he was charge sheeted for the irregularities. But the audit report is not being supplied to the second petitioner in spite of his repeated request and also his written request dated 02-7-2001 given to the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada. 5. It is further stated that in the impugned notice it is alleged that a sum of Rs.10,78,519/- is allegedly misappropriated by the second petitioner contrary to the previous allegation of misappropriation of Rs.21,57,038/-. 6. Smt. N (P) Anjanadevi Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that without conducting; any inquiry and without fixing the responsibility for the said amount, issuing of impugned notice by the respondent herein under section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act, demanding to pay Rs.10,78,519/- and also seeking to attach the house property of the first petitioner bearing door No. 1-333 (old door no.1-188/2) situated in Teachers Colony, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada, East Godavari district, is arbitrary, baseless and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended the respondent has no jurisdiction to attach her property as she had purchased the same with her own monies and also by obtaining loan from the bank. Further the audit report was not being supplied to the petitioner in spite of repeated request and also written request dated 02-7-2001 given to the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada. 7. From the perusal of the impugned notice, it goes to show that the first petitioner, who is the wife of the second petitioner herein, is a holder of RCC slab building bearing assessment no. 354, Door no.1-333 of Ramanayyapeta village, wherein the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada Rural Mandal demanded sum of Rs.10,78,519/- being the recovery of misappropriated amount from Gram Panchayat, Ramanayyapeta during the sarpanch period of the second petitioner of Ramanayyapeta village, as his wife, the first petitioner was directed to pay the above sum within seven days from the date of service of the said notice. 8. Though the second petitioner herein is no more and the matter requires thorough inquiry into the matter. This Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact and we do not wish to set aside the impugned notice and the same shall remain intact. However, without going into the merits, it is suffice that liberty is granted to the first petitioner to approach the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada Rural, by way of representation, highlighting the irregularities in Panchayat management and request the respondent to drop all further proceedings, if she so desires. In the event of any representation is filed by the first petitioner, it is for the respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada Rural, to call for the audit report for the years 1999-2000 of Ramanayyapeta village from the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, by affording reasonable opportunity to the first petitioner of being heard and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observation made in this order. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN. 01-7-2008. I s L. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies