THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24232 of 2002 DATED:13.08.2009 Between: Smt.Susheela Bai. …Petitioner And The District Collector, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24232 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the restraint order in Form No.I issued by the Deputy Tahasilar – cum – Recovery Officer, Land Bank, State Bank of Hyderabad Zonal Office, Kachiguda. The impugned order was issued under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The case of the petitioner is that Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad issued a patta allotting a piece of land admeasuring 37 square yards situated at Azampura in 1991. The petitioner obtained the loan and raised structures bearing Municipal No.16-7-347, Azampura. She also alleges that she is alone in possession and enjoying the property. However, the respondent issued the impugned restraint order purporting to recover the arrears of revenue from the house of the defaulter by name, M.Rama Krishna. The petitioner contends that the house mentioned in the restraint order does not belong to Rama Krishna, and she alone is the owner. She relies on the patta certificate issued to her by the Municipal Corporation on 30.11.1991. This Court while admitting the writ petition stayed the restraint order. Though seven years lapsed, respondents have not filed counter affidavit. When the matter is called, learned Assistant Government Pleader is not able to get instructions from the respondents. The main contention of the petitioner is that under purported recovery of arrears from M.Rama Krishna, the property of the petitioner cannot be attached in respect of which petitioner has exclusive ownership rights. There is a force in the submission of the petitioner. Further, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner’s Counsel before initiating attachment and sale of the property for recovery of revenue arrears, respondents are bound to determine the amount due to the Government after issuing notice to the defaulter. In this case, it appears, there is no such notice. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 13.08.2009 vs