HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20897 of 2002 DATED:26.08.2009 Between: V.Anjaiah .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Nalgonda Districta and anothe .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.20897 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner assails Distraint Order in Form No.1 issued under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the contractor for collection of Tolltax on the bridge at K.M.62/8 Guntur-Hyderabad road from 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1999. The agreement between the Government and the petitioner was entered on Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp paper. There was a dispute with regard to the question whether the agreement is a lease or licence. The petitioner filed W.P.No.22392 of 1998 in relation to such dispute. The said writ petition and the batch of all writ petitions were dismissed by this Court holding that the agreement to collect the Tolltax is a lease and the stamp duty has to be paid accordingly. Thereafter the second respondent issued the impugned Distriant Order. The petitioner contends that the second respondent issued the impugned notice without following the procedure contemplated under Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act. Second respondent filed a counter-affidavit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner has to conclude lease deed on Non-Judicial stamp paper at the rate of 5% of the lease amount of Rs.2,05,26,299/- and that he is liable to pay stamp duty of Rs.10,26,350/- as held by the Court in W.P.No.22392 of 1998. It is also stated that after the judgment, the Mandal Revenue Officer addressed the petitioner on 19.07.2001 demanding the payment on or before 10.08.2001. The petitioner acknowledged receipt of the notice after 03.08.2001 but he did not respond. Therefore, the Superintendent Engineer/Executive Engineer, R&B Department addressed the first respondent to recover the amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. As directed by the Distraint Collector in his proceedings, dated 17.07.2002, the impugned Distraint Order was issued. The petitioner has not filed any reply denying counter averments that he was issued a notice before Distraint Order was served on him. Therefore, it stands proved that the second respondent determined the amount and made a demand before issuing Distraint Order. The procedure followed is valid and does not warrant any interference. The Writ Petition dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 26.08.2009 KH