S ANTHAIAH Vs. SUPERINTEPDENT EXCISE DEPARTMENT STATE OF A P
LAWS(APH)-1969-1-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 24,1969

S.ANTHAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
SUPERINTEPDENT, EXCISE DEPARTMENT STATE OF A.P. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

T R SUBRAMONIA IYER VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a petition under Art. 226. of the Constitution of India to quash the sale of the properties held on 26-3-65 by respondents 2 and 3 by the issue of a writ or certiorari or such other writ, direction or order.
(2.)The circumstances in which this writ petition was filed may be briefly stated. The petitioner, who was an Abkari contractor during the years 1947 to 1950, has to pay large sums of money in respect of several contracts. Some of these contracts were entered into by the father of the petitioner and some by the petitioner himself. Of these several contracts, some related to Raichur District, now forming part of the State of Maharaatra. As per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 notices of demand under the then Hyderabad Land Revenue Act were issued on the following dates and for the sums mentioned against them. 7777.htm
(3.)Thereafter the properties of the petitioner were attached on 19-3-51, 17-12-53 and 14-6-55 under the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act. After the re- organsiation of States in pursuance of the Sates Re-organisation Act and the formation of the A. P. State a further demand notice dt; 10-11-61 was issued by the Excise authroties of the A. P. state demanding the payment of a sum of Rs. 1, 39, 858-52. The petitioner represented that this demand was not correct and requested for an enquiry without prejudice to his right to contest the validity of the demand, he began paying at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day and requested that an enquiry to be held for determining the sum due from him as "Abkari" arrears. It is alleged that the Government did not make any enquiry whatsoever and yet brought some of his properties to sale on 24-10-63 and realised a certain sum of money. Thereafter once again a notice under Sec. 36 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act was issued intimating that his properties would be brought to sale for a sum of Rs. 1, 30, 858-52 which sum was alleged to be due from him and his properties were put to sale on 26-3-65. The petitioner claims that the government had at that time in their possession Government promissory notes of the face value of Rs. 20.000 duly endorsed in their favour which they ought to have adjusted towards the arrears and then demanded only the balance of that amount that may be due from him In short it is contended that unless the amount due was finally determined after notice to him and after adjusting all the amounts of the petitioner which were in the custody of the Government.the properties of the petitioner could not be brought to sale. It is also urged that he in any event in respect of the amount due towards the contracts of Raichur and Aurangabad Districts, which amounts are due to the State of Mysore and the State of Maharastra respectively, no proceedings tinder the Madras Revenue Recovery Act could be taken by Collector Dist. Hyderabad without a certificate of the Collectors of Raichur and Aurangabad. Further even if it were held that the Hyderabad Dist Collector could preceed it is contended that without Issuing a notice of demand under Sec.25 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act the petitioner's properties could not be put to sale.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.