N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the proceedings dated 24-12-2002, issued by the 1st respondent, in the name of the petitioner s father, who died a year ago, demanding an amount of Rs. 16,64,896-60 ps. as excise arrears of 1988-89, is assailed. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his father was the highest bidder for Arrack and Toddy Shop at Malakpet for the excise year 1988-89. On the ground that his father is in excise arrears in an amount of rs. 16,64,896-60/-ps. , the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings to the petitioner to pay the said amount by availing the One Time Settlement, as evolved by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 320, rev. (Ex. II) Department, dated 10-6-2002, waiving interest on the arrears, and in default, coercive steps would be taken to recover the arrears under the A. P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short the revenue Recovery Act ). The petitioner assails these proceedings on the ground that he is not liable to pay the arrears of his late father and that the demand is barred by limitation. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither the highest bidder nor was in excise arrears to the respondents, and therefore, the respondents are not empowered to demand the excise arrears of his late father from the petitioner or take coercive steps to recover the excise arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act from him. He submits that neither any notice preceded the impugned proceedings nor any notice demanding the impugned excise arrears, was served on his father during his lifetime. At any rate, as the impugned excise arrears demanded under the impugned proceedings relate to the year 1988-89, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned demand is barred by limitation, and the respondents cannot permitted to demand the excise arrears after a long lapse of nearly 15 years. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Prohibition and Excise. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Prohibition and Excise. ( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner that the impugned demand of excise arrears, is barred by limitation, and therefore, cannot be recovered, is noted only to be rejected having regard to the judgment of this Court in Syndicate Bank v. Excise Superintendent, warangal, 2002 (4) ALD 93 , wherein, the learned Single Judge held that there is no limitation prescribed for recovery of the excise arrears. The learned Single judge upon consideration of the relevant provisions of the A. P. Excise Act, 1968 and the A. P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 held as under: when once the amount due to the government under the Excise Act is treated as arrears of land revenue, the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act can be invoked and the procedure prescribed therein can be followed for recovery of the said amount. The A. P. Excise Act has not prescribed any period of limitation for recovery of the amounts due to the Government whereas limitation is prescribed for filling of suite against the Government. ( 6 ) THE impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent in the name of the petitioner s father, who died a year back, is only a notice informing that as on the date of the notice the defaulter is in excise arrears in an amount of Rs. 16,64,896-60 ps. for the excise year 1988-89 and that the government in G. O. Ms. No. 320, Rev. (Ex. II) Department, dated 10-6-2002, has evolved a One Time Settlement, waiving interest on the principle amount, and that if the defaulter desires to avail the said benefit, he may do so, else coercive steps would be taken to recover the entire amount under the provisions of the Revenue recovery Act. ( 7 ) WHETHER or not to avail the One time Settlement for clearing the excise arrears is for the defaulter to decide. In the instant case, the petitioner is not a defaulter of the excise arrears, but his late father is in excise arrears. Inasmuch as the petitioner is not a defaulter of the excise arrears, the question of the respondents taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the excise arrears of his late father, does not arise. In the instant case, the petitioner is not a defaulter of the excise arrears, but his late father is in excise arrears. Inasmuch as the petitioner is not a defaulter of the excise arrears, the question of the respondents taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the excise arrears of his late father, does not arise. Though the petitioner is not personally liable to pay the excise arrears of his late father, this order does not preclude the respondents from recovering the excise arrears from out of the estate or properties left behind by his late father. It is always open for the respondents to proceeded against the estate or properties of the father of the petitioner, if any, left behind him. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, while holding that the petitioner is not personally liable to pay the excise arrears demanded under the impugned notice, I direct the respondent to proceed against the property/estate of the father of the petitioner, if any, left behind by him, for recovery of the excise arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act. ( 9 ) WITH the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.