THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 18953 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioner is owner of lorry bearing No. AP Q 8127. The same met with an accident, in which the father respondent No.4 died. Respondent No.4 and others ﬁled M.V.O.P. No. 148 of 1991 on the ﬁle of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal, on 27.09.1993 passed a decree, awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and making the petitioner liable to pay the said amount. For recovery of the said amount, respondent No.4 ﬁled E.P. No. 8 of 1994, and the same was dismissed. Questioning the said order, respondent No.4 ﬁeld C.R.P. No. 2012 of 1996 and it was also dismissed granting liberty to ﬁle fresh execution petitioner, after taking a certiﬁcate for the said amount, and move the Collector for recovery of the said amount as if it is a land revenue. Accordingly, respondent No.4 obtained certiﬁcate under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 29.08.1997. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.1-District Collector, Kurnool, caused an enquiry on 09.09.1997, and directed respondent No.2-Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, to recover an amount of Rs.6,03,979/- from the petitioner by attaching his properties. Thereafter, the petitioner states that respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry, and vide proceedings dated 02.05.1998 reported that the petitioner has no means to pay the amount and there is no possibility of recovering the said amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. Despite the said report, the petitioner states that another notice dated 02.04.2002 was issued, and the same is subject-matter of writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 7943 of 2002. It appears that respondent No.4, earlier ﬁled writ petition in W.P. No. 3277 of 1999, and in pursuance of the directions dated 18.04.2007, made therein, respondent No.1, having considered the representation of respondent No.4, issued distraint order dated 28.05.2007 under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation. The petitioner states that respondent No.2 again on 08.08.2007 submitted report stating that the petitioner has no means to pay, and despite the same, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 29.05.2008, issued notice of arrest, which he questioned in W.P. No. 12191 of 2008, and the same was dismissed, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued the proceedings dated 26.08.2008, enclosing warrant of arrest, and directing respondent No.2 to ensure that respondent No.3 executes the same against the petitioners. The said proceedings of respondent No.1 are impugned in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no means to pay the decretal amount, and in fact, respondent No.2 submitted reports more than once stating that the petitioner has no means to pay the amount, and there is no possibility of recovering the same under the Revenue Recovery Act, and despite the said reports, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned warrant orders dated 22.08.2008 of arrest, directing respondent No.2 to ensure that respondent No.3 arrests the petitioner, if he fails to pay the amount of Rs. 42,951/- speciﬁed therein. He submitted that before passing an order of arrest, respondent No.1 has to conduct an enquiry whether the person who is liable to pay the amount is having the means to pay and that despite having the means he is willfully withholding the payment of arrears, and no such enquiry having been conducted by respondent No.1, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in D. Ramesh Shetty v. A.P. State Finance Corporation and Ors.[1]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.3. None appear for respondent No.4. Admittedly, the father of respondent No.4 died in an accident, involving the lorry of the petitioner. Respondent No.4 ﬁled M.V.O.P. No. 148 of 1991 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, however, the Tribunal passed a decree for Rs.25,000/- against respondent No.4 on 27.09.1993, making him liable to pay the same. Respondent No.4 for recovery of the said decretal amount ﬁled E.P., and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. Questioning the same, respondent No.4 ﬁled C.R.P. No. 2012 of 1996, and this Court, while dismissing the same, granted liberty to respondent No.4 to ﬁle E.P. under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, after obtaining certiﬁcate for the amount to the Collector, who shall proceed to recover in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. It appears respondent No.4 obtained certiﬁcate to the Collector under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Collector, who proceeded to recover the amount speciﬁed therein as arrear of land revenue. Despite that, respondent No.4 is unable to realize the decretal amount. Respondent No.4 is ﬁling applications for recovery, while the petitioner is vigorously resisting. The facts, as stated by the petitioner, narrated above, indicate both of them have resorted to litigation before this Court by ﬁling writ petitions. Though the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 submitted reports stating that the petitioner has no means to pay, and that before issuing orders of arrest for non- payment of arrears of land revenue, respondent No.1 has to conduct an enquiry, the fact remains, respondent No.1 under the impugned order of arrest, has observed that the petitioner is guilty of fraudulent conduct to evade the payment of compensation. The fact that the petitioner has been resisting the payment since 1993 on one pretext or the other, and indulging in litigation shows that he is not interested in paying the amount. The amount, which the petitioner, has been determined to pay under the impugned order, is Rs.42,951/- together with costs of Rs.500/-, which includes the compensation of Rs.25,000/- directed to be paid by the Tribunal in the year 1993 and the rest is interest thereon. The said amount, which is a paltry amount, in the days of rising inﬂation, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be an amount on the higher side, resulting in diﬃculty in paying the same. The petitioner, except stating that he has no means to pay, has not made any eﬀorts to pay the same at least in instalments, and on the other hand, is litigating with respondent No.4 vigorously since 1993 onwards, with a view to evade payment. There is no doubt, as held by this Court in D. Ramesh Shetty v. A.P. State Finance Corporation and Ors. , before ordering arrest of a person for failure to pay the dues recoverable under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, the District Collector has to conduct an enquiry and ascertain whether the person is willfully withholding the payment despite having the necessary means, but in the instant case, even though respondent No.4, submitted reports more than once stating that the petitioner is not having means, the fact remains, respondent No.1 came to the conclusion that he has reason to believe that the petitioner is guilty of fraudulent conduct to evade the payment of compensation, and rightly so, because the petitioner is said to be eking out his livelihood working as a lorry broker, and he cannot be said that he has no means to pay the paltry compensation awarded by the Tribunal to respondent No.4 on account of the death of his father in an accident involving the vehicle of the petitioner, which in fact, was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner instead of being compassionate to respondent No.4, is denying him the fruits of the decree by ﬁghting the litigation relentlessly. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the impugned warrant issued by respondent No.1, directing respondent No.2 to ensure that respondent No.3 arrests the petitioner, if he failed to pay the amount determined thereunder. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 13th November, 2008. KSR [1] 1997 (2) ALD 326