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

2007 Supreme(AP) 740

A.GOPAL REDDY
Taherunnisa Begum – Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Cuddapah District – Respondent


Advocates appeared
O. Manohar Reddy, for Petitioner; G. P., 3 for Respondents.

ORDER :-

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 submi

































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