IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 25444 of 1999 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Questioning the action of the third respondent in seeking to conduct open auction, of the immovable properties of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. While the first petitioner claims to have purchased Ac.0-07 gts in survey no.9/A, Ac.1-22 gts in survey no.10/A and Ac.0-03 gts in survey no.11 from its vendor Sri Veeramreddy Venkat Reddy in the year 1972-73, to have been in possession thereof and that the sale transaction was mutated in the Record of Rights on 26.04.1993, the second petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Acs.2-00 in survey no.11 from the very same vendor and to have got the entry recorded in the record of rights on 26.04.1993. Similarly, the third petitioner claims to have purchased Acs.2-00 in survey no.11 from the very same vendor in the year 1972-73 and to have got the said transaction recorded in the Record of Rights on 26.04.1993. It is relevant to note that all the three petitioners have got the transactions of sale entered in the revenue records on the very same day i.e. on 26.04.1993. They also rely on a certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 15.09.1997 and the adangals said to have been obtained by them for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 in support of their claim that the lands were in their possession. It is their case that, while the third respondent could proceed against the immovable properties of the vendor for the amounts due from him towards excise arrears, their lands could not be put to auction since the said lands no longer belong to Sri Veeramreddy Venkat Reddy. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is stated that Sri Veeramreddy Venkat Reddy was an excise defaulter in the year 1988-89 for Rs.3,35,141.50 ps pertaining to arrack shop nos.7 and 8 of Huzurnagar, that his moveable properties were distrained on 21.12.1990 in the auction and the sale proceeds of Rs.11,995/- were credited against the default amount, that his house/plot were also put to auction and the sale proceeds of Rs.5,200/- were credited against the default amount, that his landed property was also put to auction and the sale proceeds of Rs.26,000/- was credited to the Treasury, that an amount of Rs.31,800/- recovered from him in cash was also credited against the default amount, that a total sum of Rs.74,995/- was recovered, leaving a balance of Rs.2,60,146.50 ps due towards the default amount and that he was also asked to pay the balance default amount within 8 months. It is further stated that the defaulter did not remit the amount of default of Rs.2,60,146.50 ps, that, as a last resort, notice under Sections 27, 36 and 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, in Forms 5, 7 and 7-A were issued and were served on the defaulter proposing to distrain his immovable properties i.e. the landed properties of Acs.15-38 cents in the village limits of Choutapalli of Mattampalli Mandal and put them to auction in case he failed to remit entire balance default amount, that the said notices were also published in the Nalgonda District Gazette No.5 dated 02.05.1997 and, while the lands were put to auction on 15.12.1999, the auction could not be conducted in view of the interim orders of stay passed by this Court. It is evident that Sri Veeramreddy Venkat Reddy was an excise defaulter in the year 1988-89 and the Pahani/ Chowfaslies of Chowtapalli village show that he owned patta lands for an extent of Acs.15-38 gts in that year, that the first petitioner is his wife’s sister and petitioners 2 and 3 are his sons’ wives and that the defaulter had transferred the patta lands in favour of the petitioners herein only with the intention to avoid attachment and sale of said property for realization of the excise arrears. It is clear from a bare perusal of the counter affidavit that the petitioners herein had suppressed their relationship with the defaulter. The excise default pertains to the year 1988-89 and the immovable properties were sought to be distrained as early as on 21.12.1990. The only evidence to show that the petitioners had purchased the said property in the year 1972-73 is the entry in the Record of Rights on 26.04.1993. As noted hereinabove, the alleged sales transactions pertaining to all the three petitioners was entered in the Record of Rights on the very same day i.e. on 26.04.1993 much prior to which the respondents had commenced proceedings to recover the excise arrears due from Sri Veeramreddy Venkat Reddy. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had purchased the property for valuable consideration or that the sale deeds had been registered. The entry in the revenue records has evidently been made only to circumvent action being taken for realization of the excise dues by sale of the immovable properties of the defaulter. The petitioners attempt in this regard is self- evident and is obviously a last ditch effort to protect the immovable properties of the defaulter from being sold in auction. I see no reason, therefore, to interdict the action of the respondents and their attempts to recover the excise dues from the defaulter. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that the interim order passed during the pendency of the writ no longer survives and that the respondents are entitled to proceed to recover the excise dues by putting the immovable properties concerned to auction in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 25th February 2009 CVRK