Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the demand notice dated 16.12.2004 issued by the second respondent, in proceedings ROC.1/923/85. 2. According to the petitioner, his father Muthiah Chettiar, and the first respondent entered into an agreement dated 21.03.1975 for hulling of paddy. On the basis of agreement dated 21.03.1975 the petitioners father deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 14.03.1977. 3. Dispute arose between the petitioners father and the first respondent in respect of billing. Subsequently, the petitioners father complaining breach of agreement filed a suit in O.S.No.7 of 1982 on the file of Subordinate Judge at Sivaganga, seeking to pass a decree in favour of the petitioners father directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.68,523/- being the value of rice taken by the petitioners father under threat and coercion as detailed in A Schedule, with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of the plaint and further sought for a direction to the defendant, namely the respondent herein, to pay a sum of Rs.42,042.26 being the hulling charges as claimed in "B schedule, with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of plaint. Further, prayer was made for direction to the first respondent to pay Rs.32,264.63 being the principal and interest on Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioners father with future interest at 6% per annum. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the petitioners father unsuccessfully filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed on 24.06.1999. After the proceedings initiated by the petitioners father came to an end, the first respondent failed to initiate any recovery proceedings to collect the due amount from the petitioners father. Only on 16.12.2004 a demand notice was issued on the legal heirs of Muthiah Chettiar, namely Duraisamy, the petitioner herein. The said notice has been put under challenge in the present writ petition, by the legal heirs of Muthiah Chettiar who originally entered into the agreement dated 21.03.1975 with the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised three main points, namely, the present impugned demand notice has been issued without issuing any prior notice. Secondly, it was urged that the impugned demand notice has been issued with a delay of 29 years and, therefore, the alleged claim made by the respondent is hopelessly barred by limitation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised three main points, namely, the present impugned demand notice has been issued without issuing any prior notice. Secondly, it was urged that the impugned demand notice has been issued with a delay of 29 years and, therefore, the alleged claim made by the respondent is hopelessly barred by limitation. Thirdly, it was pleaded that when there was no specific calculation on the disputed quantum, as allegedly demanded by the first respondent, the issuance of the impugned notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, is bad in law and, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned order. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of this court in Commissioner of Civil Suplies vs. V.Sethuraman (1974 TLNJ 511). 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the pendency of the suit and subsequent appeal, the respondents were not in a position to initiate any proceedings and, therefore, the delay has occurred. However, it is not known whether any other demand notice has been issued prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Subsequently, it was also contended that prior issuance of notice is not necessary since, there was an agreement between the petitioners father and the first respondent by entering into an agreement on 21.03.1975, permitting the first respondent to claim any due or financial liabilities from the petitioners father, including his legal heirs, namely, the petitioner herein. 6. Heard the parties on both sides. 7. Admittedly, there was an agreement entered into between the petitioners father and the first respondent on 21.03.1975 permitting hulling of paddy. By virtue of the above said agreement, a dispute arose between the parties, it appears that the petitioners father alleging payment of money to Rs.68,523/-filed civil suit in O.S.No.7 of 1982 against the respondent on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga. But the same was subsequently dismissed. An appeal was also filed as against the dismissal of the suit. But even the appeal also came to be dismissed on 24.06.99. After the proceedings initiated by the petitioners father came to an end on 24.06.1999, the first respondent initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner after 29 long years, by issuing the said impugned demand notice on 16.12.2004, which is hopelessly barred by limitation. But even the appeal also came to be dismissed on 24.06.99. After the proceedings initiated by the petitioners father came to an end on 24.06.1999, the first respondent initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner after 29 long years, by issuing the said impugned demand notice on 16.12.2004, which is hopelessly barred by limitation. Fortunately, the Law of limitation is applicable not only against the petitioner but equally against the respondents Department as well. The first respondent had supplied paddy of inferior quality unfit for hulling. When the first respondent failed to pay a sum of Rs.68,523/- for value of the rice taken, Rs.42,042/-towards hulling charges and Rs.32,262/- being the principle and interest accrued on the amount placed with the first respondent towards security, a suit was filed by the petitioners father in O.S.No.7 of 1982 for realisation of the said amount. After the dismissal of the said suit, unsuccessfully an appeal filed also came to be dismissed. While so, after 20 years, that too, when the quantum is fairly and reasonably in dispute, it is a matter to be decided by a competent court, knowing pretty well that their stale claim is barred by long delay, should not have resorted through Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, as the impugned notice has been issued with a huge delay of more than 2 decades, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the since impugned order issued, is clearly hit by limitation, the same is set aside and the writ petition is therefore allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.