IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26058 of 2001 Between: A. Srinivasa Babu S/o Radha Krishna R/o Chintal Basti, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tasildhar & Recovery Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer), Lead Bank Office, Khammam. 2 Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by its Branch Manager Kothagudem, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. HARI SREEDHAR FOR MR.Y.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.2: MR. B.NAGI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside demand notice, dated 24.11.2001 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 52-A of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Act’) with regard to a time barred debt. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from respondent No.2. According to him, the loan amount was received by the petitioner on 14.03.1989. On the request of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice under Section 52-A of the Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,564/-, which comprised the principal amount and the interest. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and reinforced by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing that the impugned demand notice was issued with regard to a time barred debt and that Section 52-A of the Act cannot be invoked for recovery of such a time barred debt. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner made renewals from time to time and therefore, the amount demanded under the impugned notice is not a time barred debt. Neither of the two respondents filed their counter-affidavits. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that renewals were made by the petitioner, neither a counter-affidavit has been filed nor any material in support of this contention has been filed in the Court. In the absence of any pleading and the material in support thereof, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In State of Kerala and others v. V.R.Kalliyanikutty and another[1], the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 which are in pari materia with Section 52-A of the Act, held that no proceedings could be initiated for recovery of a time barred debt. This judgment is followed by this Court in N.A.Radha and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department and others[2]. Following the dicta laid down in the above-mentioned judgments, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th MARCH, 2009. kvni [1] (1999) 3 SCC 657 [2] 2000(2) ALT 484