Time-barred debt cannot be recovered through revenue recovery; demand notice did not extend limitation.

Revenue recovery provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act and the State Financial Corporations Act apply only to amounts that remain legally recoverable when proceedings begin. A time-barred debt cannot be treated as an "amount due" for coercive recovery, so the Corporation could not invoke revenue recovery machinery to realise the barred claim. A creditor's demand notice will extend limitation only if it satisfies Section 18 of the Limitation Act and is properly proved as an acknowledgment of liability; the notice dated 05.10.1999 did not do so and therefore did not revive or extend limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Financial Corporation could recover, under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 read with the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, amounts that had become time-barred; (ii) whether the notice dated 05.10.1999 extended limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the Financial Corporation could recover, under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 read with the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, amounts that had become time-barred.

Analysis: Section 52-A of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 authorises recovery of amounts due as arrears of land revenue, and the notification issued thereunder permits recovery of loans granted by the Financial Corporation. Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 similarly enables recovery of amounts due as arrears of land revenue. The expression "amounts due" was read as limited to sums that remain legally recoverable on the date recovery proceedings are initiated. Applying the principle that a time-barred debt is not a legally recoverable amount, the Court held that coercive recovery cannot be used to enforce such a barred claim.

Conclusion: The proposed recovery of the debt was impermissible because the claim had become time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice dated 05.10.1999 extended limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: A mere demand notice by the creditor does not by itself amount to an acknowledgment of liability capable of extending limitation unless the statutory requirements are satisfied. The notice relied upon was not shown to have been properly proved or served in a manner establishing an acknowledgment for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, it could not revive or extend the limitation period.

Conclusion: The notice did not extend limitation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed because the Corporation could not invoke revenue recovery proceedings to realise a time-barred debt, and the purported notice did not save limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts recoverable under revenue recovery provisions must be legally recoverable on the date proceedings are initiated, and a time-barred debt cannot be treated as an "amount due" for coercive recovery.

---