A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

The issue which this Court is called upon to adjudicate in the present Writ Petition, filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the claim of the respondents for recovery of the amount from the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act is permissible and whether the same is barred by time.

2. The respondents-the State Financial Corporation Limited sanctioned a term loan to the petitioner for establishment of an industry, vide sanction letter bearing Ref. No. AFC/LN/88- 89/2738A, dated 26.7.1988. On the ground that the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount, the State Financial Corporation Limited seized the petitioner's industry on 27.6.1991, sold its machinery on 23.5.1992 for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- and also sold its land and building on 21.01.2000 for Rs. 80,000/- and executed a sale deed, vide document bearing No. 485, dated 22.01.2001, in favour of the auction purchaser.

3. It is significant to note that a notice under Section-52-A of the Revenue Recovery Act was initially issued to the petitioner on 20.8.1997 indicating therein a sum of Rs. 3,76,861/- as the outstanding amount. The said notice was challenged in Revision before the State Government and the said Revision ended in dismissal in the year 2001. Subsequently, once again the second respondent issued a notice under Section-52-A of the Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner, vide Ref. No. AFC/SDT/RR ACT/2005-06/4430, dated 17.12.2005 indicating therein a sum of Rs. 20,83,832/- as the outstanding amount. This Writ Petition challenges the validity and legal sustainability of the said notice.

4. This Court on 20.9.2006 in WPMP. No. 24189 of 2000 granted interim suspension of the impugned notice. Thereafter, on 30.4.2008, the said interim order was made absolute subject to the petitioner paying the principle amount of Rs. 1,30,247/- within a period of six weeks from that date.

5. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations and averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, and in the direction of justifying the impugned notice. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Sreemannarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-the State Financial Corporation Limited apart from perusing the material available before the Court.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice is highly arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India, opposed to the very spirit and object of the State Financial Corporation Act and barred by limitation. To bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Daka Venkatrami Reddy v. Central Bank of India, Ongole 2000(2) ALD 565.

7. On the contrary, it is vehemently contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-the State Financial Corporation Limited that there is no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action of the respondents and in the absence of the same, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article-226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the claim is barred by limitation is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. In support of his contentions and submissions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

"1. Punjab Financial Corporation v. Surya Auto Industries (2010) 1 SCC 297

2. Deepak Bhandari v. Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (2015) 5 SCC 518

3. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. Pawna and Others (2015) 5 SCC 617."

In the above background, the issue framed above needs to be considered.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the