IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 214 OF 2007 Between: Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Office of the District Registrar, Chittoor, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.V.Krishnaveni and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 214 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the state represented by Joint Sub-Registrar, office of District Registrar, Chittoor, who has obtained leave of this Court and filed the present revision seeking to question the order of executing Court dated 21.09.2006 in E.P.No.60 of 2005. The decree holder in the said E.P. had obtained a decree for specific performance against the judgment debtor in O.S.No.194 of 1996. Since the said judgment debtor was not coming forward to execute the sale deed for the suit schedule land, the present E.P. was filed before the Court below. The learned Government Pleader representing the petitioner herein represented that the suit schedule lands are assigned lands and Joint Sub-Registrar cannot be directed to execute registered sale deed as per Section 5 of the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’). The Court below rejected the said objection after noticing that very same land was registered in favour of judgment debtor by the same Joint Registrar under document dated 09.01.1984 and accordingly directed the draft sale deed be sent to the petitioner for registering the document. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred. The learned Government Pleader vehemently submits that previously registered document dated 09.01.1984 cannot be taken into consideration as at that time the prohibition as contained in Section 5 of the Act referred to above was not applicable. He also contends that the lands covered with the suit schedule land comprising along with another survey number are registered as DKT lands and neither the decree holder nor the judgment debtor got any right or title over the property and on account of prohibition under Section 5 of the Act, the Joint Sub- Registrar cannot register the document in obedience to the directions of the executing Court. Learned counsel appearing for the decree holder submits that the executing Court is merely executing the specific performance decree obtained by the decree holder against the judgment debtor and draft sale deed is being sent to the Joint Sub-Registrar to Registrar. He submits that Section 5 of the Act referred to above would not affect the registration of document inasmuch as the same is being done through the Court and it is not a voluntary sale deed. I have considered the rival contentions. Firstly it is to be noticed that the judgment debtor is apparently not aggrieved by any orders of the executing Court and his interest are being expoused by the petitioner. Even if the suit schedule land belongs to Government as contended by the petitioner, by registering the document, no warranty of title is being passed on to the purchaser nor the purchaser would get any better title than that of the judgment debtor. In law therefore the decree holder will step into shoes of the judgment debtor and would be subjected to rights and liabilities as that of the judgment debtor. The apprehension of the petitioner that merely by registering the document the claim of the Government on the said DKT lands will any way be diminished or affected, is without substance. The entitlement of the state to enforce the Act as above or to take appropriate action in accordance therewith, remains unaffected, even if the document is registered in favour of the decree holder as per the directions of the Court. Secondly, the sale being not voluntary sale and it is a sale by the Court, the impediment under Section 5 of the Act would not apply and therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of the executing Court warrants no interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. When the document is registered the status of the decree holder with regard to the suit schedule property shall be subject to all the aforesaid claims of the state. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 15.07.2010 Ivd