Since these two writ petitions are arising out of identical issues they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner in W. P. No. 18164 of ; 2000 is the son and the petitioner in W. P. No. 18178 of 2000 is the wife of Ghouse Mohiddin, who was declared as revenue defaulter. They call in question the attachment of their houses by the respondents for due recovery of the amount payable by the 'revenue defaulter under the Revenue Recovery Act. 1864 (for short 'the Act').

3. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 18178 of 2000, she purchased the house bearing D. No.7 /264-A situated at Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa under a registered sale deed. dated 7-10-1989, for a consideration of Rs.21,200/- from one Shaik Ghouse Peera. While so, the Mandai Revenue Officer issued a notice in Ref./L740/98. dated 16-7-1999, to her husband stating that while he was working as Sub Treasury Officer he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 52.88.390/and called upon him to pay the said amount. It is also stated that the second respondent issued the notice of attachment and published the same in the District Gazette on 17-8-2000. On coming to know about the same, she submitted a detailed explanation stating that the said house was purchased by her from her own income, and therefore, the same cannot be attached for the alleged amounts due by her husband, it is also stated that she came to know that the first respondent is taking seps to put the said house to auction for realization of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by her husband. Challenging the same, she filed the above writ petition.

4. According to the petitioner in W.P. No. 18164 of 2000. he purchased the house bearing D. No. 24/24 situated at Gandhi Road, Praddatur, Kadapa District, under a registered sale deed, dated 10-11-1992 from its lawful owner Mallela Mahamood for a consideration of Rs. 1, 12.000/ -. While so, the second respondent affixed a notice under Section 27 of the Act to his house stating that the house has been attached to recover the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by his father. Hence, he got issued a legal notice to the District Collector, Kadapa and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur through his advocate on 24-71999 claiming that previously he worked at Saudi Arabia during 1988-91 and on his returning to India he purchased the schedule house from its lawful owners out of his own savings and that the said property cannot be a subject matter of attachment for recovery of the amounts due by his father.

In response to the said notice, the District Collector, Kadapa, the first responden1 herein issued a reply vide Ref. No. D 1/5175/95. dated 17-11-1999, stating that the schedule house has been purchased by the petitioner when he was in joint family; tha1 the Government Pleader. Kadapa opined tha1 the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is with a mala fide intention for misleading the Government and so he advised to attach the said house under the Act. As such, the second respondent issued the demand notice in Form 4, under Section 25 of the Act and affixed the same on the house of the petitioner. After expiry of 15 days time. Form-5 under Section 27 of the Act was also affixed on the doors, as the same could not be served on the delinquent. Hence, the action initiated under the Act to effect recovery of embezzled Government money of Rs. 52.88.390/- is proper and there is no merit in the pleadings of the petitioner to stop further proceedings under the Act. Questioning the same, the writ petition is filed.

5. In response to Rule Nisi issued, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Proddatur filed a counter affidavit in W. P. No. 18164 of 2000 stating that he issued D 1 Notice under Section 3 of the Act on 24-1-1994 to revenue defaulter for payment of amount due to the tune of Rs. 52.88.390/- fixing the time limit up to 4-2-1994. As the defaulter failed to pay the amount within the time allowed, he recovered the movable p