( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the order dated 25. 11. 2004 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No. 3678 of2004.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging a notice dated 17. 2. 2004 issued by 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue officer, Tirumalagiri Mandal. He contended that he was engaged in export business of drugs to Dubai under a scheme known as Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB scheme ). He was exporting huge drugs namely "naproxen", the consignment of which was lying in Bombay Nhava Sheva docks. The consignment was seized, the petitioner was arrested and detained by director of Revenue Intelligence under conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 12. 9. 2001 under Section 14 of the foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) act, 1992. The allegation against the petitioner was that he exported chalk powder under DEPB scheme by falsely declaring it as "naproxen and Rifampicin BP" (bulk drugs ). The petitioner gave his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, a final show-cause notice was issued on 25. 1. 2002 by the Joint Director general of Foreign Trade asking him to explain as to why fiscal penalty should not be imposed against him. The petitioner did not submit his explanation and the Joint director General of Foreign Trade, hyderabad passed final order on 19. 3. 2002 imposing fiscal penalty of Rs. 1,30,60,725/- on the petitioner under Section 11 (2) of the foreign Trade Act, 1992. For recovery of the penalty, District Collector-2nd respondent in the writ petition was authorized to recover the penalty from the petitioner. Pursuant to which, Mandal Revenue Officer passed an order dated 17. 2. 2004 directing the petitioner to pay the penalty within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. This notice was challenged in the writ petition. The petitioner s licence was also cancelled by order dated 13. 5. 2002. This order was also under challenge by way of writ petition being WP No. 12878 of 2002 which was, by order of the court, tagged to a batch of writ petition along with W. A. No. 1953 of 2001 and they were pending consideration.

( 3 ) THE grounds agitated before this court and before the writ Court are that the impugned notice was issued under section 25 of the A. P. Revenue Recovery act, 1864 and the Act did not provide for any recovery with respect to dues or penalties imposed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The imposition of penalty is not under challenge in this Court. Therefore this court in this writ petition has to decide a limited question as to whether a notice under Section 25 of the A. P. Revenue recovery Act, 1864 could have been issued or not.

( 4 ) MANDAL Revenue Officer-1st respondent filed his counter in which it is stated that a requisition was received by the District Collector-2nd respondent from the Deputy Director General of Foreign trade-4th respondent for recovery of dues from the petitioner under Foreign Trade Act as contemplated under Section 5 of the revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act 1 of 1890 ). The amounts were requested to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The requisition indicated that the petitioner failed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,30,60,725/- towards the penalty imposed under Section 11 (2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. It is further contended in the counter that the Central act does not prescribe an elaborate procedure specifying in what manner arrears of land revenue have to be recovered. It is only under the State Act that an elaborate procedure is contemplated and the revenue authorities discharging functions under both the statutes, have necessarily to take resort to the provisions of the State Act for effective recovery of arrears of land revenue.

( 5 ) 4th respondent also filed counter in which it is stated tha