IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12191 of 2008 Between: U.M.S. Ballenna S/o. Late Veeranna D.NO.18/469, Near Quibula Quarters, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2 The Tahasildar, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 U. Narayana S/o. U. Papi Reddy R/o. N. Kairavadi Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing notice vide No.Rc.D3/1837/97, dated 29.05.2008 against the petitioner under A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Section 48 of the Revenue Recovery Act and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B.VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: ---- The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 12191 of 2008 Order: Questioning the impugned notice dated 29.05.2008, issued by the 1st respondent, namely the District Collector, Kurnool, under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why arrest warrant should not be issued against him for not paying compensation amount of Rs.42,951/- with interest awarded in M.V.O.P. No. 148 of 1991, the present writ petition is filed. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent herein filed M.V.O.P. No. 148 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Kurnool seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of his son in a motor accident. The Tribunal had passed a decree on 27.09.1993 awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a., making the petitioner alone liable. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent filed E.P. No. 8 of 1994 in M.V.O.P. No. 148 of 1991 for arrest of the petitioner and for detention in civil prison. The said E.P was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the 3rd respondent failed to prove that the petitioner has sufficient means to satisfy the decretal amount. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent filed C.R.P. No. 2012 of 1996. The same was dismissed by this Court, by order dated 07.06.1996. However, the 3rd respondent was granted liberty to file a fresh execution petition under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. The recovery certificate was issued under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by order dated 29.08.1997. In pursuance of the said certificate, the 1st respondent-District Collector had caused verification on 09.09.1997 and requested the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar to recover the awarded amount from the petitioner by attaching his properties. The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry, submitted his report dated 02.05.1998 to the 1st respondent-District Collector informing that there is no possibility to recover the awarded amount from the petitioner. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has approached this Court and filed W.P. No. 3277 of 1999 seeking to direct the 1st respondent-District Collector to take action against the petitioner under Revenue Recovery Act, which was disposed of, by order dated 18.04.2007, directing the 1st respondent-District Collector to reconsider the request of the 3rd respondent, vide his representation dated 30.11.1998, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar has issued Distraint Order dated 28.05.2007. In response to the said order, the petitioner has got issued a legal notice dated 29.05.2007 stating that he does not own any movable or immovable properties and he has no source of income to pay the awarded amount. However, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, after conducting enquiry with regard to means and properties of the petitioner, submitted a report dated 08.08.2007 to the 1st respondent-District Collector stating that the petitioner does not own any properties. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of repeated enquiries made by the revenue authorities and in spite of finding that he does not own any properties and he has no capacity to pay the awarded amount, the 1st respondent-District Collector has issued the present impugned notice calling upon him to show cause as to why arrest warrant should not be issued against him as willful defaulter in M.V.O.P. No. 248 of 1991, dated 13.08.1997, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner is defaulter of claim amount awarded in M.V.O.P. No. 148 of 1991, dated 13.08.1997. The contention of the petitioner is that since the revenue authorities have enquired into the matter on several occasions and satisfied that he does not own any properties and he is incapable of discharging the claim amounts, the 1st respondent ought not to have issued the impugned notice. I am unable to accept the said contention, for the 1st respondent-District Collector, in pursuance of the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No. 3277 of 1999, dated 18.04.2007, and after considering the fact that the petitioner is willful defaulter in M.V.O.P. No. 148 of 1991, has issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why arrest warrant should not be issued against him, and it is for the petitioner to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 13.06.2008 Nsr