IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HUDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO.17419 OF 2002 Between: KVSS Sambhu Prasad, s/o late Gunneswararao, Hindu, 74 years, Business, r/o Palakole, W.G.District. … PETITIONER And : 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer on deputation to APIDC, Parishram Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2. AP Industrial Development Corporation, rep by its Managing Director, Parishram Bhavan, Bahseerbagh, Hyderabad … RESPONDENTS 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing impugned notice under Revenue Recovery Act, Reference Ni., dt 28-8-2002, as illegal, null and void arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Arts. 19(i) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings including attachment of properties and movables of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Challa Dhanamjaya, Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 17419 OF 2002 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner assails the notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 28.8.2002 calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.945.59 lakhs within 15 days from the date of the impugned notice, failing which the 1st respondent threatens to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act (‘the Act’) treating them as arrears of land revenue u/Section 52A of the Act. The petitioner-Managing Director of A.P. Bagasse Products Ltd., (a private limited company) states that the company was a joint venture with A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation. The unit was financed by the 2nd respondent and the AP State Finance Corporation by way of term loans. The Industrial Financial Corporation, the ICICI and the IDBI also participated in the venture. The company was registered in 1980 and final production was started in June 1991 but the unit was closed in 1993. The APIDC seized the unit in February 1996 invoking the provisions of the State Finance Corporation Act. The unit was put up for sale by auction and it was eventually sold in December 1998. While so, the impugned notice was issued which was stated to have been served on the petitioner on 28.08.2002. The petitioner asserts that the entitlement of the 2nd respondent to recover the dues is barred by limitation and for such time barred debt the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Ors vs V.R. Kalliyanikutty and Anr ( [1] ) and the judgment in N.A.Radha and Ors vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors ([2]), for the proposition that a time barred debt cannot be recovered by employing coercive process under the Revenue Recovery Act. Mr. Damodar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent does not contest this legal position as he cannot. In the circumstances, since the impugned notice was issued after the period of limitation in respect of a time barred debt, the impugned notice is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 09.02.2009 ------------------------- pvsn Justice G.Raghuram [1] (1999) 3 SCC 657 [2] 2000 (2) ALD 560