IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9605 of 2004 Between: S. Konda Reddy, S/o. Late S. Sambasiva Reddy, Konidela Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector and Magistrate, Kurnool Dist., Kurnool. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Collector's Complex, Kurnool Dist., Kurnool. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Collector's Complex, Kurnool Dist., Kurnool. 4 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. .....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 issue a Writ or Order or direction, preferable to the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned section 8 notice under AP RR Act and further action of the 5th respondent in attaching the petitioner agriculture of 150 Quintals Bengal Gram and 14 Quintals of Sun Flower without following the mandatory provisions and procedure established under the AP RR Act without legally determining the amount by issuing the certificate as required under law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above stated impugned proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.9605 OF 2004 ORDER : The petitioner herein was the elected Sarpanch of Konidela Village, Nandikotukur Mandal, Kurnool District, who functioned as such from 1989 to 1994. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 10.6.2004 issued under Section 8 of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, attaching the agricultural produce belonging to the petitioner i.e., 150 quintals of Bengal Gram and 14 quintals of Sun Flower for recovery of Rs.3,53,507/-, allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record, one Sri T. Siva Nagi Reddy made a complaint before the 1st respondent alleging misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds by the petitioner and on the basis of the same the Extension Officer, Nandikotukur was directed to submit a report. Accordingly, the Extension Officer, Nandikotkur submitted a report dated 18.10.2001 stating that though certain advance drawals were recorded in the cash book, the works were not executed by the petitioner herein. However, the 1st respondent – District Collector – by proceedings dated 16.11.2001 ordered recovery of Rs. 3,87,507/- under J.R.Y. and General funds of Rs.50,846/- from the petitioner under Section 254 of A.P.P.R. Act, 1994 and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District to proceed against the movable and immovable property of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned notice under Section 8 of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act was issued. The said notice has been challenged in this writ petition contending inter alia that there was no opportunity to the petitioner before holding that the petitioner had misappropriated the panchayat funds. As could be seen from the material available on record, no opportunity was given to the petitioner either in the enquiry conducted by the Extension Officer or before issuing the proceedings dated 16.11.2001 by the 1st respondent. No other material could be placed before this Court by the respondents to show that the alleged liability of the petitioner was determined after giving him an opportunity to make his representation. It is also relevant to note that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court dated 16.6.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.12258 of 2004 the sale pursuant to the impugned notice was stayed and the learned counsel for the petitioner states that subsequently the movable properties i.e, Bengal Gram and Sun Flower were sold by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition leaving it open to the respondents to initiate fresh recovery proceedings if they so choose after adjudicating the alleged liability of the petitioner following due process of law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.12.2008 gbs