HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 26416 of 2007 Date: 20.06.2014 Between:
Penumalla Subbi Reddy and 3 others.
…Petitioners And The District Collector, Kakainada and 2 others.
…Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT Writ Petition No. 26416 of 2007 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel.
Shorn of all details, the case on hand is yet another example of over enthusiasm exhibited by respondent No.2 in issuing notice under the provisions of the A.P.Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Act’) to recover the alleged excess amount paid by the 3rd respondent to petitioners in terms of sale deeds dated 05.05.2006. The petitioners questioned the initiation of recovery proceedings under the Act, on more than one ground and the foremost ground being excessive use of jurisdiction by the 2nd respondent.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the transaction between them and the 3rd respondent has nothing to do with the 2nd respondent. Any amount paid, received or not under respective sale deeds can never form part of a proceeding under the Act.
This Court, through order dated 11.12.2007, granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 19.08.2007. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 11.06.2014 and with a view to appreciate the manner in which the 2nd respondent is exercising the jurisdiction under the Act to recover the alleged excess amount, paid by the 3rd respondent to petitioners, the 1st and 2nd respondents were directed to produce the record. The record in impugned file is made available for perusal of the Court.
No doubt, the file discloses that the 2nd respondent without properly verifying whether the recovery now sought to be enforced comes within the definition of revenue recovery or not, has taken up and issued the order of attachment. After receiving the interim order introspection within the department and better advice of one of the senior officers is heeded to and all further proceedings were dropped as early as 22.03.2008.
Had it been a case where the respondents 1 and 2 have joined issue with the petitioner in sustaining the notice impugned, this Court would have while deciding the issue, considered imposing exemplary costs on the respondents. Even before the further hearing has taken place on their own in the writ petition, the impugned notice is withdrawn. Hence, I am not expressing any view on the manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the respondents.
By placing on record the proceedings dated 22.03.2008, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
S.V.Bhatt,J Date: 20.06.2014 KLP