SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(AP) 125

CHENNAKESAVA REDDY
Somasundarshan Goud – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Hyderabad – Respondent


( 1 ) THE Collector, Bombay, by his letter No. LRB/mof/rev/1/74, dated 20-9-1975 requested the Collector, Hyderabad, to collect a sum of Rs. 42,300. 00 as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. The Collector, Hyderabad, initiated proceedings, by his letter No. D2/20449/75, for the collection of the amount and instructed the revenue officials to recover the amount from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. After receipt of this proceeding, the Spl. Revenue Inspector issued Distraint Order under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act 1984 and served it one the petitioner on 14-4-1977. It was stated in the Distraint Order that a sum of Rs. 42,300. 00 fell due from the petitioner towards toddy licence fees for the year 1973. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition alleging that he never took any licence for selling toddy from the Excise Authorities in Maharashtra, that the Collector, Hyderabad, was not entitled in law to invoke the proceedings of the Revenue Recovery Act 1864 for realising the arrears alleged to be due to the State of Maharashtra and that, therefore, the action initiated by the Collector, Hyderabad, for the collection of the amount








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top