IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11293 of 2001 Between: Tummu Venkateswarlu S/o.Ramakoti R/o. Timmaraopet, Enkur Mandal, Khammam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Recovery Officer ( Tahasildar ), Lead Bank Office, SBI, Wyra Road, Khammam. 2 The District Collector, Khammam. 3 Branch Manager, Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Timmaraopet, Enkur Mandal, Khammam Dist. .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Distraint Order issued in Process Register No.149 dt.20.2.2001 issued by the ( Tahsildar ) Recovery Officer, Lead Bank Office, Khammam and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.KAMESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.11293 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be a small farmer. He has applied for obtaining a loan from the 3rd respondent-Bank. According to him, he has repaid the said loan but in spite of that the 1st respondent- Revenue Recovery Officer (Tahasildar), Khammam, initiated proceedings against him under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, which is questioned in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner has raised, inter alia, the other grounds that the debt being barred by limitation etc. 3. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit asserting that the petitioner had earlier obtained a loan of Rs.5,000/- and after repayment thereon, he has obtained a fresh loan of Rs.2,000/- on 18- 06-1986 and another loan of Rs.3,000/- on 01-07-1986 by renewing the earlier loan account for the purpose of purchasing fertilizers. It is also alleged that the petitioner has executed acknowledgments on various dates and there is a part payment of Rs.400/- on 13-02-1997 and Rs.2000/- on 06-06-2001. The 3rd respondent, therefore, has opposed the claim of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit pointing out that there is no question of revival of loan and the allegations in that regard are not correct. He also alleged that the recovery of Rs.2,000/ -on 06-06- 2001 was under a threat and coercion and it does not amount to part payment of the loan amount for the purpose of limitation. 5. While that is the situation on the respective stands of the parties, the various schemes relating to waiver of loans of small agriculturists have been initiated by the Government as a policy decision. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a small farmer and he will be eligible under the said loan waiver schemes including the latest scheme announced by the Union of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to state as to whether the petitioner has applied for such waiver. I, therefore, feel it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: 1. That the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the 3rd respondent-Branch Manager, Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Khammam, (which is now said to have been amalgamated with Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikasa Bank), within a period of four weeks from today. 2. That on such representation being made, the 3rd respondent or the transferee bank shall consider the said request in accordance with the policy and schemes of the Government and pass appropriate orders thereon. 3. That by order dated 12-06-2001, this Court granted interim suspension with respect to the distraint order in question. The said suspension shall continue till the authorities as above take a final decision on the representation of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ 19th December 2008 KVR