THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.615 OF 2004 Dated: 29.07.2010 Between: Mr.s N. Karuna Anand … Petitioner And The Special Tahsildar, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad Branch, Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.615 OF 2004 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 21.11.2003 issued by the respondent under Section 52-A of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 is arbitrary and illegal. The facts which are not in dispute are as under: The petitioner, who had availed a loan of Rs.1,21,886/- on 27.2.1990 from the A.P. State Financial Corporation, failed to repay the amount. In the circumstances, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 21.11.2003 demanding a sum of Rs.14,72,000/- allegedly due and payable under the loan account. The said action of the respondent is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the impugned proceedings initiated under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 are barred by limitation. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the fact that the loan was availed in the year 1990 and it was an unsecured loan has not been disputed. However, it is contended that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings initiated under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and therefore the petitioner’s contentions that the proceedings are barred by limitation is untenable. The very same question was considered by the Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS v. V.R. KALLIAYANIKUTTY AND ANOTHER[1] and it was held that the amount due normally refers to an amount which the creditor has a right to recover. The relevant portion from the above decision may be extracted hereunder: “… … … Although the necessity of filing a suit by a creditor is avoided, the extent of the claim which is legally recoverable is not thereby enlarged. Under Section 70 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act the right of a debtor to file a suit for refund is expressly preserved. Instead of the bank or the financial institution filing a suit which is defended by the debtor, the creditor first recovers and then defends his recovery in a suit filed by the debtor. The rights of the parties are not thereby enlarged. The process of recovery is different. An Act must expressly provide for such enlargement of claims which are legally recoverable, before it can be interpreted as extending to the recovery of those amounts which have ceased to be legally recoverable on the date when recovery proceedings are undertaken. … … …” The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of this Court in N.A. RADHA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[2] wherein following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in V.R. KALLIAYANIKUTTY’S case (1 supra), it was held by this Court that any acknowledgement of debt after the expiry of the period of limitation does not constitute an acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot lie for recovery of the amounts that are barred by limitation. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents cited before this Court a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in JAGDISH RAI v. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION[3] wherein it was held that the recovery proceedings are in the nature of execution proceedings and the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable to the proceedings under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The decision of Punjab and Haryana is clearly distinguishable on facts and therefore the ratio laid down therein has no application to the present case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case which make it clear that no payments were made by the petitioner from the year 1990 onwards and it is clearly a time-barred debt, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in V.R. KALLIAYANIKUTTY’S case (1 supra) as well as N.A. RADHA’S case (2 supra) is attracted and therefore the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 52-A of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 are not sustainable. Accordingly the impugned notice is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.07.2010 gbs ` [1] AIR 1999 SC 1305 [2] 2000 (2) ALD 560 [3] AIR 2008 PUNJAB & HARYANA 50