IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17541 of 1996 Between: P.Padmavathamma, W/o. P.Krishna Reddy, R/o. 16/2021, Vedamvari Agraharam, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Nellore. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Nellore. 4 Excise Superintendent, Nellore. .....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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in bringing the petitioners share of property comprised in building no. 2021, situated in Vedamvari Agraharam, Nellore, is illegal and accordingly set-aside the notiﬁcation dt.12.8.1996 and interdict the respondent from auctioning petitioner's share in the said property to sale for recovery of excise arrears in pursuance of the said communication dt.11.7.96. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17541 of 1996 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in bringing the petitioner’s share of property comprised in building No.2021 situated in Vedamvari Agraharam, Nellore to sale, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to set aside the notiﬁcation dated 12.8.1996 and interdict the respondents from auctioning petitioner’s share in the said property for recovery of excise arrears in pursuance of the communication dated 11.7.1996. The facts, which are necessary for resolving the issue, may be noticed as under: It appears, the husband of the petitioner Ponugoti Krishna Reddy S/o Venku Reddy, participated in the excise auction held for the year 1990-91 and, being successful bidder, he had entered into an agreement with the Excise Department and, executed counter- part agreement along with solvency certiﬁcate issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nellore for Rs.10,00,000/- vide No.1605/90 dated 22.10.1990 at Door No.16/2-21, Vedamvari Agraharam, Nellore town. According to the respondents, petitioner herein, who is the wife of Ponugoti Krishna Reddy gave consent for obtaining solvency certiﬁcate against the above said house, since both of them have jointly purchased the said building in the year 1982 under a registered sale deed. It appears, the husband of the petitioner fell in arrears in respect of excise rents, therefore the same were adjusted from the Bank Guarantee furnished at the time of grant of licence. According to the respondents, the husband of petitioner had lifted the entire MGQ ﬁxed for the year 1990-91 and he fell in due of a sum of Rs.34,31,451/- to the Government being rentals and thus he became defaulter. Thus, in the process, the immovable property situated at Door No.16/2-21, Vedamvari Agraharam, Nellore town within the extent of 35, 30/72 ankanams i.e. (236.903 sq.m), which was registered on 5.10.1982, in favour of Ponugoti Krishna Reddy and his wife Smt.Ponugoti Padmavathamma was brought to sale on 26.2.1994 under Revenue Recovery Act by the Revenue and Excise oﬃcials and the said building was put to public auction after publication of notices as per rules. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Record of Rights), Nellore has conducted auction of the building and since no private bidders participated in the said auction, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nellore bid the building for Rs.5,00,000/- on behalf of Government. Before conﬁrmation of the sale, Smt.P.Pitchamma and P.Ramanamma, mother and sister of defaulter Krishna Reddy have ﬁled W.P.No.4204 of 1994 before this Court claiming ownership of the subject property. The said writ petition was allowed and the auction/sale proceedings were quashed on the ground that the petitioners therein are the owners of the western portion of the house bearing No.16/2-21, Vedamvari Agraharam, Nellore town and they were not the defaulters to the State. Thereafter, it appears, the present impugned order has been served on the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she never entered into agreement with the State with regard to excise auction. It may be true that she gave consent to her husband for obtaining solvency certiﬁcate from the Tahsildar concerned to enable him to participate in the excise auction, but she never entered into any agreement with the excise department, therefore she cannot be made liable to pay the dues said to have been incurred by her husband. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in JOSEPH ABRAHAM v. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL AND ANOTHER[1] and submitted that mere giving consent for obtaining certiﬁcate of solvency does not make the petitioner liable for payment of excise dues purported to have been incurred by the husband of the petitioner. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in KALIMILI RADHAKRISHNAIAH v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[2] and stated that no notice of any kind has been issued to the petitioner and on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suﬃce to notice from the counter ﬁled by the respondents, wherein it is stated that the contention of petitioner that she purchased the house with Stridhanam funds and she is not in arrears of tax dues to the State are not relevant and there is no need to serve any notice on the petitioner as she is not the excise defaulter and notice has been served on the husband of petitioner. These averments are suﬃcient to prove that the petitioner was not served with any notice. Of course, petitioner has not denied the fact that she gave consent for obtaining solvency certiﬁcate from the Tahsildar by her husband, but that itself does not mean that she is liable to pay the excise dues said to have been incurred by her husband. Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the respondents in putting the petitioner’s property to auction. Firstly, no notice of any kind was issued and secondly, petitioner cannot be made liable only on the ground that she gave consent for obtaining certiﬁcate of solvency. The two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel also fortify the stand taken by the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondents is arbitrary, illegal apart from violative of principles of natural justice, therefore the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 8.8.2008 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17541 of 1996 8.8.2008 [1] AIR 1971 Kerala 334 (FB) [2] 1979 An.W.R. (2) 314