IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2852 of 2000 Between: M/s. M. Prabhakara Rao & Company rep. by Managing Partner 11-4-1, Rockdale Apartments., Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer Y.R.P.C.Circle, Kakinada-3 2 The Executive Engineer Y.R.Canals Division, Peddapuram-533437 3 The District Collector Visakhapatnam, x 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Visakhapatnam (Urban), Vizag 5 State of A.P. rep. by Secretary to Govt. Irrigation Deppartment,. Secretariat Buildings, Siafabad, Hyderabad .....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 or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with Distraint Order under Form No.1 Sec. 8 of A.P. Revenue recovery Act issued by the 4th Respondent dt: 24-1-2000 and quash or set aside the same and issue a consequential declaration that the Respondents are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Revenue Recovery act in respect of alleged dues relating to Y.R.P.C. Canal Work and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AKA.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2852 OF 2000 O R D E R (Per Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner firm which filed this writ petition inter alia assailing the validity of the distraint order dated 24.01.2000 passed by the fourth respondent purportedly under the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act (Act 11 of 1864) mainly on the ground that the petitioner had neither notice nor any prior enquiry was conducted before passing of the said order; and secondly having regard to the civil suits pending between the parties – four suits filed by the Government viz., O.S.Nos.160, 164, 949 and 950 of 1997 and two suits filed by the petitioner viz., O.S.No.113 and 135 of 1995, the question of proceeding under the aforesaid Act by issuing a distraint order is not sustainable. Having regard to the pendency of civil proceedings at the instance of both the parties as is evident from the fact that the respondents herein admitted the pendency of those suits between the parties in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition and also the fact that there was no prior notice, we are of the opinion that passing of the distraint order straight away is wholly unsustainable. The writ petition is therefore allowed and the distraint order dated 24.01.2000 issued by the fourth respondent is set aside. However, both the parties are at liberty to raise all the objections, including the grounds which are sought to be raised in this Writ Petition, before the civil Court in which event the same shall be considered on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations, if any, made in this order. Further, it is also open to the respondents to proceed further for recovery of revenue subject to the decision in the aforestated civil suits pending between the parties. No costs. ----------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 4TH AUGUST, 2009 PGS / VGSR