Judgment : Heard Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Ganga Rao, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner speaking through its Managing Partner claimed that it was awarded the work of construction of Collectorate Complex at Nalgonda by the 3rd respondent under an agreement No.40/B/95-96, dated 24-06-1995, the work having been executed and completed by 08-02-1999 and handed over to the 3rd respondent on 14-04-1999. The value of the total work had gone up to Rs.4,82,28,308/-and the petitioner had to approach this Court in W.P.No.7205 of 2002 against non-finalization of the final bill and payment of the balance. When the writ petition was dismissed on 18-04-2002, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.994 of 2002, which was allowed directing the Government to consider and approve the revised estimate and pass appropriate orders within two months. When the petitioner filed C.C.No.1191 of 2002 against non-compliance with the direction, the same was subsequently dismissed on 17-10-2003. The last bill relating to the work was the 15th bill prepared in March, 1999 and credited to the bank account of the petitioner on 08-04-1999. After gap of more than 7 years, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings No.A/2157/2006, dated 19-07-2006 directing the petitioner to remit Rs.46,66,023/- and a further sum of Rs.5,18,446/-towards collection charges. The same was followed by a distraint order dated 03-08-2006. The letter of the 2nd respondent dated 19-04-2006 appeared to have led to these two proceedings and the amount was stated to be the excess amount paid to the petitioner. Either proceedings was not preceded by any notice or the determination of the quantum of the amount due, without paying even the legitimate dues to the petitioner as seen from the order in W.A.No.994 of 2002. The respondents seek to recover the amounts barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 taking recourse to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, which is impermissible as per the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court since AIR 1999 SC 1305 . The petitioner, therefore, desired both the proceedings to be declared illegal. The 3rd respondent speaking for respondents 1 to 3 stated in his counter affidavit about finding several deviations in the construction of the Collectorate Complex in the foundation, flooring, plastering, altech finishing, ceiling, doors and windows and architectural items. The petitioner, therefore, desired both the proceedings to be declared illegal. The 3rd respondent speaking for respondents 1 to 3 stated in his counter affidavit about finding several deviations in the construction of the Collectorate Complex in the foundation, flooring, plastering, altech finishing, ceiling, doors and windows and architectural items. The department made payment to the contractor from time to time from first and part bill to 15th and part bill through the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Division, Nalgonda and the payments included even deviations and supplemental items of work, which have to be corrected in the subsequent bills subject to the approval of the Chief Engineer. The revised administrative sanction for the work accorded by the Government under G.O.Rt.No.1286, dated 25-11-2002 and the revised technical sanction from the Chief Engineer (Roads and Buildings), dated 13-12-2002 were for an amount of Rs.3,94,03,221/- due to which the 16th and final bill prepared was found to be a negative bill because of the excess payment paid to the petitioner for the supplemental items of work and non-SSR items of work amounting to Rs.51,84,469/-. As there was no response from the petitioner to refund the excess payments made in pursuance of the letters addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer and the Senior Audit Officer of the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh to the Executive Engineer, the petitioner was again requested on 09-06-2004 to remit the amount for which there was no response. It was under the circumstances that the 4th respondent was requested to proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act and the Department was left with no other alternative. The 3rd respondent further stated that special condition No.13 of the original agreement supports the demand and the claim is not barred by limitation. Hence, he desired the interim stay to be vacated and the writ petition to be defeated. The 4th respondent in his counter affidavit stated about the 3rd respondent addressing the District Collector on 09-12-2005 and in pursuance of the directions of the District Collector, Hyderabad, his issuing a notice dated 19-07-2006 to the petitioner to remit the amount. The absence of response to the notice led to the distraint order dated 03-08-2006 and the 4th respondent defended himself as taking action permissible under law as evident from the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. The absence of response to the notice led to the distraint order dated 03-08-2006 and the 4th respondent defended himself as taking action permissible under law as evident from the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent. The notice dated 19-07-2006 was not questioned appropriately before the distraint order was issued and no objections were ever submitted against the notice. The arrears claimed by the 3rd respondent was stated by the 4th respondent to be within limitation and hence, he also requested the writ petition to fail. The Managing Partner of the petitioner in his reply affidavit stated that the petitioner never received the letter dated 09-06-2004 said to have been sent to it and there was no other notice about recovering the amount under Revenue Recovery Act. The counter affidavits themselves disclosed the last payment under the 15th bill to have been made in the year 1999 and any proceedings for recovery of the amount in March/April 2002 are barred by limitation and the present proceedings were after gap of more than 7 years from the date of the last payment and more than 4 years after the period of limitation. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily relies on the ratio of the State of Kerala and others v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and another ( AIR 1999 SC 1305 ) where dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which are, in pari materia with of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, the Apex Court held that it is only the claims that are legally recoverable and are not time-barred on that date that can be recovered under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and claims, which are time-barred on the date when a requisition is issued, are not “amounts due” under that Act and cannot be recovered under the said Act. The principle laid down therein has been subsequently followed in N.A. Radha and others v State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2000 (2) ALD 560) and further precedents from this Court before learned Single Judges and Division Benches. The principle laid down therein has been subsequently followed in N.A. Radha and others v State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2000 (2) ALD 560) and further precedents from this Court before learned Single Judges and Division Benches. The facts relating to the entrustment and execution of the work are not in dispute and while the payment of the last bill, the 15th bill was in 1999, which was credited to the petitioner’s bank account on 08-04-1999, the initiation of the steps for recovery of the amount claimed to be due under the Revenue Recovery Act commenced with the letter from the 3rd respondent to the District Collector on 09-12-2005 followed by the impugned proceedings and distraint order, the time that elapsed in between made the claim barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, which cannot be in dispute, and if so, irrespective of other considerations, the principle laid down by the Apex Court should squarely apply. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on S.K. Bhargava v. Collector, Chandigarh and others ( AIR 1998 SC 2885 )to emphasize that the determination of the sum due from the alleged defaulter after hearing him is a mandatory requirement under a comparable statute of Haryana. The Apex Court was relying on the principles of natural justice implicitly enshrined in the provisions referring to the determination of the sum due and consequently held that such principles would require a notice being given before any amount is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In the absence of proof of issue or service of any such notice on the petitioner herein before attempting to recover any specified sums, this principle also may apply. To the same effect is the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B.C. Mulajkar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce Dept., and others ( AIR 1971 AP 169 ), which is straight under the Revenue Recovery Act in which also the Division Bench held that before initiation of any recovery proceeding under Section 52, it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to hold a proper enquiry, furnish full particulars to person sought to be fastened with the liability, consider his representations and determine the liability or otherwise for the sums said to be due. In other words, the Division Bench stated that the recovery proceedings under Section 52 should be preceded by an anterior determination of the liability and the amount due towards such liability. Such anterior determination of the liability or the quantification of the amount due towards such liability have not taken place in the present case. Therefore, on any of these considerations, the writ petition has to succeed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed without costs.