Dismissed

V.Vittal Rao v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC19 Feb 2007WP/35211/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench set aside a notice of attachment of the petitioner's immovable property invoking the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act. The court accepted that the alleged liability was pending determination in civil court, rendering the attachment unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice of attachment of immovable property set aside; liberty to institute fresh proceedings granted.

V.Vittal Rao Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 35211 of 1997

¶3

DATE: 19-02-2007

¶4

Between : V.Vittal Rao … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District and 2 others. … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 35211 of 1997

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the first respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, in seeking to attach the immovable property belonging to the petitioner invoking the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of a sum of Rs.53,964.15p. allegedly due in connection with a lining work entrusted to him by the third respondent during the year 1982-1983.

¶9

This Court, while directing Rule Nisi, by order, dated 30-121997, granted interim suspension of the impugned notice dated 1112-1997.

¶10

Though, Rule Nisi was ordered on 30-12-1997, no counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents and the interim order continued to be in operation through out.

¶11

The specific case of the petitioner is that the claim of the respondents towards the amounts allegedly due is untenable and without any basis and as a matter of fact, with regard to the very same claim A.S.No.27 of 1995 is pending before the Court of the II Additional Judge, Karimnagar. Thus it is contended that it is not open to the respondents to invoke the provisions of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act.

¶12

In the absence of counter affidavit by the respondents, the version of the petitioner that his liability, if any, has not yet been

¶13

determined and the same is the subject matter of the proceedings pending in the civil court has to be accepted. Consequently, the impugned notice of attachment cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to institute fresh proceedings in case necessity thereof arises after determination of the petitioner’s liability if any. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶14

G. ROHINI, J.

¶15

Dt. 19-02-2007 KLP

V.Vittal Rao v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vittal Rao v. The Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Meeraiah, Vs The Registrar, University of Health Sciences

B.Nagamma, Vs the District Collector

Kanchustambam Venkateswara Rao Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

Dr.Kodali Rama Krishna Vs The Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, health and Family

Badvel Venkatasubba reddy, Vs Dist.Collector, Nellore.

Guntamadugu Venkata Raju, Vs The Joint Collector cum Settlement Officer