SYED SHAH MOHD. QUADRI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the validity of the notice of attachment dated 27-10-1988 issued under the Revenue Recovery Act by the second respondent, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad as being illegal and arbitrary.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a dealer in food grains and turmeric. He is carrying on the business in Nizamabad. The third respondent - the A. P. Civil Supplies corporation invited tenders from transport contractors for transporting, storing and handling of edible oil in the Medak District for the period commencing from 29-5-1981 till the end of December, 1982. The agreement was entered into on 29-5-1981. In connection with the transporting of the edible oil, certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the third respondent. Whereas the petitioner claims that a sum of Rs. 1,30,000. 00 is payable to him by the third respondent, the third respondent claimed that a sum of rs. 14, 12, 511. 10 ps. was payable by the petitioner to it. For recovery of the aforesaid amount, the third respondent filed O. S. No. 71 of 1984 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. While so, the third respondent wrote to respondents 1 and 2 for initiating proceedings under the a. P. Revenue Recovery Act (for short the Act ) for recovery of the amount of Rs. 14, 12, 511. 10 ps. Pursuant to the above requisition, the impugned notice is issued.

( 3 ) NO counter affidavit is filed.

( 4 ) SRI M. Chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that under Section 52-A of the Act, no notification has been issued including the third respondent as one of the public bodies whose arrears could be recovered under the said Act. He further contends that the amount in demand is not an ascertained sum, therefore, the impugned notice has to be quashed.

( 5 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that under Section 52-A of the Act, notification has been issued and therefore the amount due to the third respondent can be recovered by having recourse to the provisions of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel argues that the suit has been decreed and therefore, the amount has become ascertained amount and can be recovered by the impugned proceedings.

( 6 ) THE point that arises for consideration on the above contentions raised by the learned Counsel, is: whether the arrears due to the third respondent can be recovered by resorting to the provisions of the A. P. Revenue Recovery Act.

( 7 ) SECTION 52-A of the Act provides for recovery of sums due to certain banks and other public bodies as arrears of land revenue. The said provision, in so far as it is relevant for our purpose, is in the following terms;"52-A. (1) Recovery of sums due to certain banks and other public bodies as arrears of land revenue:- without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken, all loans granted and all advances made to any person- (i) by any bank to which the repayment of the said loans and advances is guaranteed by the State Government or; (ii) by such Corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or Government Company as defined in Sec. 617 of the companies Act, 1956, or such other public body as may be notified in this behalf by the State Government in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette; together with interest on such loans and advances and all sums, such as rents, margin money and the like, due to the bodies mentioned aforesaid may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of this Act: provided that the State Government may, by notification in Andhra pradesh Gazette, specify the loans and advances together with interest thereon, and other sum due to the bodies mentioned in item (ii) above which may be recoverable under the provisions of this Section. "a perusal of the provision, extracted above, makes it clear that all loans granted and advances made to any person by a bank to which the repayme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document