IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11110 of 2009 Between: Ananthula Mohan Rao S/o.Sambaiah R/o.1-8-514, Flat No.A6, Green Square Apartments, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. 2 Prohibition & Excise Inspector (SHO), Eturnagaram, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.BALAMUKUNDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner questioned proceedings issued by respondent No.2, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, whereby his moveable properties have been attached. At the hearing, it is admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, that the issues raised in this Writ Petition are squarely covered by Order dated 26-12-2006 in W.P.No.22349 of 2006. In the said order, this Court held as under: “It is relevant to note that Section 52 of the Act provides for recovery of all arrears of revenue due to the State Government, including compensation for any loss or damage sustained in consequence of a breach of contract, as arrears of land revenue. However, unless the alleged liability is determined after giving adequate opportunity to the person concerned, it cannot be said that the same becomes due to the State. In the case on hand, admittedly, no such opportunity was given to the person to put forth his version against the amounts sought to be recovered under Rules 18 and 20 of the Rules towards alleged resultant loss to the Government. It is true that the details of the amounts sought to be recovered were mentioned in the proceedings dated 31.07.2005, however, it cannot be held that the same was in compliance with the requirement under Section 52 of the Act, much less in conformity with the fundamental principles of natural justice. A reading of the letter dated 31.07.2005, a copy of which has been placed before this court, shows that it is an internal correspondence between the officials. The mere fact that a copy of the said letter was marked to the petitioner cannot be construed as an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his version against the proposed recovery.” As identical fact situation exists in this case, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the above-reproduced Order with the direction that the observations and directions contained therein shall form part of this Order. The respondents are given liberty to initiate fresh recovery proceedings following the due process of law and in the light of the observations contained in the above-reproduced Order of this Court. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14279 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 15th June, 2009 lur