P.V. Vijaya Kumari, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4681 AP

                                      1




        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

               MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.22784 of 2022

                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.
                                          ORDER

No      DATE

1.    27.07.2022   DR, J

The petitioner is the absolute owner and

possessor of a house property bearing

D.No.2-16-27/2, Flat No.103, Mehta Enclave,

Plot No.55, situated in Sy.No.13/P, Sector-6,

M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam and she has

been residing at the said house since 2005.

While so, the 4th respondent came to

house of the petitioner and informed her that

the 3rd respondent has requested to attend

before him in connection with an enquiry

against the attachment of the property under

the Revenue Recovery Act by the 2nd

respondent. When the petitioner made an

application under RTI Act to furnish copies of

the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent

attaching the property, in reply to that, the

copy of the proceedings dated 27.06.2014 of

the 2nd respondent was furnished stating that

the 7th respondent has committed financial

irregularity and basing on the request of the 6th

respondent, the 2nd respondent has passed the

impugned order dated 27.06.2014. Aggrieved

by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do

with the 7th respondent and the allegations

made against the 7th respondent are with

regard to misappropriation of certain facts. He

further submits that by mistake the

respondents are proceeding to attach the

property of the petitioner under the Revenue

Recovery Act.

The learned counsel further relied on the

order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18178 of

2000, dated 01.08.2007, wherein this Court

held as follows:-

" In the absence of such reasoned order, mere enquiry conducted by the authorities unilaterally and coming to a conclusion that the properties owned by the petitioners were purchased by the revenue defaulter, cannot enure to the benefit of the respondents authorizing them to attach the said properties without following the due procedure as held by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in the cases referred to supra. Unless the respondents obtain necessary declaration from the competent Court that the said properties were purchased by the revenue defaulter in the name of the petitioner's benami, they cannot proceed with the attachment of the properties".

In view of the above, the respondents are

not entitled to attach the property of the

petitioner without notice.

Hence, considering the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and upon perusal of the observations made by

this Court in the above said Judgment, there

shall be direction to the respondents not to

take any coercive steps against the petitioner's

property.

Post after four(4) weeks.

_________ DR, J tm