IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13028 of 2008 Between: The Landholders of Vuyyuru I and III Estates Sub-Division, Krishna District, rep. by one of its Principal Land Holders Smt. Vimaladevi Appa Rao, W/o. Late Sri M.S. Appa Rao, age 70 yrs, R/o. No.39, 2nd Street, Dandayudhapani Nagar, Kotturpuram, Chennai. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. rep. by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 4 The District Treasury Officer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 5 The Estates Abolition Tribunal, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, rep. by its Chairman. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not paying the amounts due to the husband of the petitioner during his life time and subsequently to the petitioner and other legal representatives in pursuance of the endorsement of the ﬁrst respondent vide Ref.G1/2420/83, dt. 04.09.2000 Annexure-A, and subsequent interest thereon till the date of payment as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and for a consequential direction to the respondents to immediately release payment of an amount of Rs.3,07,34,914/- payable to the petitioner and others as on February 2005 with subsequent interest thereon till the date of payments in pursuance of Annexure C and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.13028 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the amounts due and payable to the husband of the petitioner while he was alive, and after his death to the petitioner and his other legal representatives in pursuance of the endorsement of the ﬁrst respondent vide Ref.G1/2420/83 dated 04.09.2000 described as Annexure-A and interest thereon, from the date it became due and payable to till the date of payment, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to immediately release payment of an amount of Rs.3,07,34,914/- to the petitioner and others as on February, 2005 with subsequent interest thereon till the date of payment in pursuance of Annexure-C. The petitioner claims that her husband, who is one of the four principal landholders and sharers in the Estate of Vuyuru I and III situated in Krishna District and abolished under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. The 2nd respondent herein, namely, the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, made an endorsement in Ref.G1/2420/83 dated 04.09.2000 to the eﬀect that a sum of Rs.2,86,894/- was deposited by him before the 5th respondent herein, namely, the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, through the 3rd and 4th respondents herein, namely, the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, and the District Treasury Oﬃcer, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, respectively, which amount was payable to the estates of Vuyuru and Meduru. The petitioner further states that the 5th respondent got the said amount deposited in the Bank with 12% interest thereon ever since from the year 1966-67, and the same is now lying in the bank as deposit, on which interest also accrued; and that the husband of the petitioner while he was alive, filed a petition before the 5th respondent-Tribunal, which by order dated 19.12.2001 directed the Deputy Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Krishna Machilipatnam, to issue certiﬁcate of credits with respect to the deposits made by the 2nd respondent. In pursuance of the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent in G1/2420/9/83 dated 04.09.2000, challan for Rs.50/- for each deposit was paid in State Bank of Machilipatnam, for issuance of the certiﬁcates of credits for the said deposit. However, the petitioner states that no such certiﬁcates were issued, and therefore, her husband ﬁled another petition on 07.10.2001 before the 5th respondent-Tribunal seeking further directions to the Deputy Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Krishna at Machilipatnam, for issuance of the said certiﬁcates of credit and the said petition is still pending consideration before it. The petitioner further states that a representation was also submitted to the Joint Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad, requesting him to give appropriate directions to the said Deputy Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Krishna at Machilipatnam, but in vain. The main grievance of the petitioner is that although the amount was deposited in the bank to the credit of Vuyyur Estate, the respondents are not making any eﬀort to pay the same and that the petition ﬁled on 07.10.2002 before the 5th respondent-Tribunal for issuance of certiﬁcates of credit, are still pending consideration before it. Hence, she ﬁled the present writ petition. According the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, although he has moved the 5th respondent-Tribunal by ﬁling a petition before it on 07.10.2002 seeking to issue necessary directions to the Deputy Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Krishna, Machilipatnam, for issuing certiﬁcates of credit as directed by it on 19.12.2001 but so far no orders thereon had been passed. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents are not evincing interest in making payments to the petitioner and others for the reasons best known to them although the amount was deposited in the Bank long back. Despite granting time as the respondents did not ﬁle any counter, this Court on 07.07.2008, while ordering notice before admission, granted one week’s time to ﬁle counter, and in default, directed the appearance of the respondents. Pursuant to the said order, the 4th respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit inter alia stating as follows: “2. In reply to para No.2 it is submitted that the District Judge is the Administrator of the Personal Deposit Account and he can deposit and withdraw for the purpose and there is no treasury control over the deposits.This deposit relates to the long back years of 1966 and 1967 for which the particulars of credit are not readily available with District Treasury Office, Krishna at present. 3. In reply to Para No.4 it is submitted that it is learnt that the Deposits in the Personal Deposit Account as mentioned in Annexure- A were already withdrawn in the same years and were deposited in the National Banks with 12% interest that is not related the Treasury. It is mentioned that a statement of endorsement by the Treasury Department Machilipatnam District Oﬃce which is stating that the Deposits were being renewed every ﬁve years as per Annexure-B. It is nto the document that was given by the Treasury Department, Machilipatnam District Oﬃce. It seems to be given by the District and Estates Abolition Tribunal Judge, Krishna. In reply to Para No.5, it is submitted that the letters of correspondence either by the 5th respondent or by the petitioner are not mentioned in the writ petition. The challan numbers and date of remittance of Rs.50/- per each deposit for issuing certiﬁcates of credit are also not mentioned in the writ petition. 5. In reply to Para No.7 it is submitted that it is mentioned in the writ petition that a representation was also submitted to the Joint Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Hyderabad, is not known whereas Deputy Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Krishna, Machilipatnam, have not received any representation from the petitioner. 6. In reply to Para No.13, it is submitted that the amounts with interest to a tune of Rs.3,07,34,214-00 as per Annexure-C are no way connected to the Treasury Department.” On the oral directions made by this Court, Registrar (Vigilance) enquired and reported that no petitions ﬁled by the husband of the petitioner are pending consideration before the 5th respondent-Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court that the petitioner may be given liberty to ﬁle petition afresh narrating facts in detail before the 5th respondent-Tribunal seeking payment of the amounts due and payable to her husband, she being his legal representative, under the provisions of Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning for the respondents, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is at liberty to approach the 5th respondent- Tribunal and make proper application seeking payment of compensation due and payable to her husband, under the provisions of Estates Abolition Act, 1948, and if any such application is ﬁled, the 5th respondent-Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of ﬁling of such application. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 06.08.2008 VGSR