The subject-matter of these writ petitions is common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P.No.27987 of 2012.

All the three writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner. While in W.P.Nos.11101 and 11102 of 2012, two notices dated 02-04-2012 and 09-04-2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Dharmasagar Mandal, the 1st respondent herein, under Section 22 of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short 'the Act') are challenged, W.P.No.29787 of 2012 is filed, challenging the notice dated 09-08-2012, issued under Section 36 of the Act.

The petitioner advanced loans to two rice mills, viz., M/s Lakshminarasimha Industries, IDA, Rampur Village, Dharmasagar Mandal, and M/s Somanath Agro Industries, Ramanjapur, Venkatapur Mandal, Warangal District. It is stated that movable and immovable properties pertaining to the rice mills were hypothecated or mortgaged, as the case may be, as security, for repayment of loan. Both the loans are said to have become non-performing assets. It is stated that proceedings are being initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.

The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, the 3rd respondent herein, supplied huge quantities of paddy to the two rice mills, referred to above, for conversion into rice and supply of the same to the Food Corporation of India. However, the mills did not supply the rice, and have virtually appropriated the paddy supplied to them. The 3rd respondent approached the District Collector, Warangal, the 2nd respondent, who, in turn, directed the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings under the Act. Initially, notices were issued under Section 22 of the Act, requiring the defaulter to pay the amounts due, which run into crores of rupees, within the stipulated time. Since the amount was not deposited, steps were initiated for sale of the property owned by the mills as well as, of their partners.

The petitioner contends that the movable and immovable properties owned by the respective mills are hypothecated or mortgaged to it, and as long as the charge remains, the proceedings under the Act cannot be initiated, vis-a-vis the said properties. It is also pleaded that the very initiation of proceedings under the Act is untenable, since prior determination of the amount was not done. The petitioner further contends that the primacy accorded to the process of recovery of arrears of land revenue cannot be extended to the amounts, referred to as 'deemed arrears' and that they can be recovered through the ordinary process of law.

The 3rd respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit. He has furnished the details of the paddy that was procured from farmers and handed over to the mills, for conversion into rice. He submits that the rice mills have appropriated public property handed over to them did not supply the resultant rice in spite of repeated demands, and left with no alternative, the proceedings under the Act were initiated. He submits that the Corporation is nothing but an extension of civil supplies department and that the proceedings are initiated strictly in accordance with law. He has also pleaded that the charge said to have been created in favour of the petitioner is subject to the claim under Section 17 of the Act.

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, contradicting the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. Sri Addepally Suryanarayna and Sri A. Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that long before the 3rd respondent supplied paddy to the rice mills, loans were advanced by the petitioner, duly creating charge over the movable and immovable properties under validly executed documents. They submit that though it is competent for the respondents to proceed against the rice mills to recover any amount due to them, they cannot touch the properties as regards which, hypothecation or mortgage exists. They further submit that the