THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.13482 AND 13522 OF 2001 COMMON ORDER The petitioners in both the writ petitions obtained agricultural and business loans in the years 1984 and 1983 respectively and as they failed to pay the loan amount, the impugned distraint orders were issued in the year 2001 under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The claim of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that the loan was not sanctioned under P.M.R.Y. or under any other scheme introduced by the State or Central Governments and hence the loan cannot be recovered by the 1st respondent – Bank by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Their claim is that the 1st respondent – Nagrajuna Grameena Bank, Patwarigudem Branch, Demmapeta Mandal, Khammam District is not justified in issuing the distraint order invoking the provisions of the said Act, after the expiry of period of limitation for recovery of the loan amount. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter in the present writ petitions is similar to the subject matter in the batch of writ petitions disposed of by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.Nos.13491, 13497 and 13508 of 2001 dated 8.4.2002, wherein this court considering the impugned distraint order issued by the respondent – Bank therein, which is Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Sattupalli Branch, Khammam District, under the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of the agricultural loan, which was not granted under PMRY or any other scheme introduced by the State or Central Government and which were issued after the expiry of period of limitation, held that the Regional Rural Bank like the first respondent cannot recover the loans and advances given towards agricultural loans, as arrears of land revenue, under Section 52-A of the Act, since the respondent - Bank is not brought under the said provision of the Act. Eventually while allowing the writ petition, this court held as under: “In the result, the writ petitions are allowed with costs. Be it recorded that this Court has not adverted to various disputed questions as to enforceability of debt having regard to law of Limitation and as to genuineness of the claim made by the Bank which are to be gone into before an appropriate civil court.” 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is also allowed with costs in terms of the judgment of this court dated 8.4.2002 in W.P.Nos.13491, 13497 and 13508 of 2001. AVS ---------------------------------- 27—04—2009