JUDGMENT Ashok S. Kinagi, J. - Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner has purchased land bearing Sy.No.226A measuring to the extent of 35 cents and 226B measuring to the extent of 3 acres of Siruguppa Taluk, Bellary District through registered sale deed dated 17.05.1993. The petitioner had also purchased lands bearing Sy.No.1426B measuring 1 acre 2 cents of same village through registered sale deed dated 18.05.2005 and also Sy.No.1240 measuring 1 acre 53 cents through registered sale deed dated 18.05.2005. All the above properties are self-acquired properties of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner has secured excise contract and in the excise business he incurred huge loss and the first respondent has determined the excise dues which is called as Excise Revenue Principal amount of Rs.1,96,82,830/- and an interest to the tune of Rs.6,56,62,946/-, totally amounting to Rs.8,53,45,776/-, which according to the department is the excise revenue payable by the husband of the petitioner. The first respondent wrote a letter to the Inspector of Excise, Bellary stating that the said amount is to be recovered as if it is a land revenue in terms of Section 63 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (for short, the said Act of 1965 ) and also wrote a letter to ascertain the properties held by the husband of the petitioner. The Tahsildar sent a report stating that the husband of the petitioner does not have any properties and that the petitioner is owning the above said lands. The first respondent vide letter dated 24.12.2013 directed the second respondent to take action against the properties owned by the petitioner. The second respondent passed an order directing the Tahsildar to recover the arrears of excise by selling the properties owned by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the second respondent as per Annexure-H. The Tahsildar passed an order dated 04.12.2014 to attach the lands of the petitioner showing the excise due to the tune of Rs.8,53,45,776/- and accordingly steps have been taken to make entry in the Record of Rights stating that the petitioner is liable to clear the dues. A copy of the said order is at Annexure-M. The petitioner has challenged the orders at Annexures H and M . 3. A copy of the said order is at Annexure-M. The petitioner has challenged the orders at Annexures H and M . 3. The learned AGA has filed the statement of objections contending that the properties owned by the petitioner are purchased by the husband of the petitioner in the name of the petitioner and the action of the first respondent declaring the said amount as arrears of land revenue and directing the Tahsildar to effect recovery, is in accordance with Section 63 of the said Act of 1965. It is further contended in the statement of objections that the petitioner has not challenged the demand notice issued to the husband of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has no right to challenge Annexures H and M and it is further contended that since no properties stood in the name of the husband of petitioner, the Tahsildar has rightly directed to attach the properties standing in the name of the petitioner, which is in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1965. Hence, the respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the properties attached by the second respondent are the self-acquired properties of the petitioner and the petitioner has purchased the same through registered sale deeds and she became the absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(1)(i) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is not liable to pay the dues of her husband as she is not under the obligation to pay the dues of her husband and further the action initiated against the property of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. The respondents before passing the order at Annexure-M has not issued any show-cause notice to the petitioner. Thus, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, the learned AGA fairly submits that before passing Annexure-M, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he further submits that the action initiated by the respondents are in accordance with the provisions of Section 63of the said Act of 1965 and also under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Hence he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Hence he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the records. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had purchased the properties through registered sale deed and accordingly the name of the petitioner is appearing in the revenue records. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner has secured Excise License for running excise business and he has sustain loss and could not pay the dues to the Excise Department. The Excise Department issued a letter to the Tahsildar to ascertain whether the husband of the petitioner possessed any property. The Tahsildar replied stating that the husband of the petitioner does not possess any property, but the petitioner owned agricultural lands. The respondents proceeded to attach the properties owned by the petitioner and passed the order dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure-M). 9. As far as the liability of the husband of the petitioner is concerned, it has to be recovered only from the person who is the license holder who is primarily liable to pay the same or from the surety, if any, as if they were arrears of land revenue. To consider the contention of the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is necessary to consider Section 63 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 which reads as under: 63. Recovery of Government dues.- (1) The following moneys, namely:- (a) all excise revenue; (b) any loss that may accrue when in consequence of default, a lease under Section 17 has been taken under management by the Deputy Commissioner, or has been re-sold by him; and (c) of amounts due to the Government by any person on account of any contract relating to the excise revenue, may be recovered from the person primarily liable to pay the same or from his surety, if any, as if they were arrears of land revenue. (2) When a lease has been taken under management by the Deputy Commissioner, or has been re-sold by him, the Deputy Commissioner may recover, in the manner authorised by sub-section (1), any money due to the defaulter by any lessee or assignee. 10. (2) When a lease has been taken under management by the Deputy Commissioner, or has been re-sold by him, the Deputy Commissioner may recover, in the manner authorised by sub-section (1), any money due to the defaulter by any lessee or assignee. 10. I see much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the liability that has been incurred by the husband of the petitioner ought not to have been fastened on to the petitioner unless a show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner and that they intend to proceed against any properties that are standing in the name of the petitioner's husband. It is not open to the respondents to mulct the liability of the husband of the petitioner by making a claim against the petitioner without issuing showcause notice. If such show-cause notice was in fact issued to the petitioner it would have been open to the petitioner to contend all the defenses that are available to the petitioner. In these circumstances on the facts of this case, I am of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-M issued against the petitioner making the petitioner liable for the liability accrued against the husband of the petitioner, is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been called upon to pay the liability of the husband of the petitioner without due process of law and without a show-cause notice being issued, Annexure-M dated 04.12.2014 is quashed as contrary to law. 11. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to issue a show-cause notice. If the show-cause notice is issued to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to file objections to the said notice and thereafter the respondents can pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly allowed in part. 12. The learned AGA is directed to file memo of appearance within a period of three weeks from today.