THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NO. 4891 OF 2004 Date of Judgment: 7.6.2011 Between: Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, …Petitioner and Korada Appa Rao and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 4891 OF 2004 ORDER: The state is the petitioner which is aggrieved by the order of the executing court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram in accepting and recognizing the assignment of the decree by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. The lands belonging to the respondent No.2 were acquired and compensation payable to him was determined under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said decree was assigned by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 and the said assignment was sought to be recognized by the executing court by making an application under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. The said application of the respondent No.1-assignee was opposed by the State by contending that the decrees and awards under the Land Acquisition Act are personal in nature and only the persons whose properties were acquired are eligible to receive the compensation and not the third parties. The executing court considered the said aspect with reference to several decisions cited before it and came to the conclusion that the decree under the Land Acquisition Act is also a transferable decree and as such the assignment of the said decree in favour of respondent No.1 deserves to be recognized and accordingly allowed the application for recognition of assignment made by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is preferred. Heard both sides. The learned Government Pleader contended that the decree sought to be assigned is personal to the owner of the land which was acquired and a third party cannot be allowed to file an execution petition on the basis of the alleged assignment. The decree undoubtedly was passed in favour of respondent No.2, who was admittedly the original owner of the property which was acquired. However, Order 21, Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code was duly complied with by the respondent No.1 by making an application for recognition of the assignment made in his favour by the respondent No.2 and the executing court, being satisfied about the said assignment, has recognized the said assignment. On the face of it, I am unable to see any distinction between a decree under the Land Acquisition Act and any other decree. It cannot be denied that every decree, be it in the nature of specific performance or partition, is assignable subject to recognition of assignment by the court. The decree under the Land Acquisition Act being no different than other decrees, there is no reason to think that such a decree is not transferable. Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that property of any kind may be transferred subject to exceptions which are provided under sub- clauses (a) to (l) thereof. The compensation amount payable under the decree by the judgment debtor to decree holder is, therefore, a property which can be transferred without any impediment and in law it is described as ‘choose in action’ and it does not amount to mere right to sue which is prohibited under clause 6 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act. I, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the court below recognizing the assignment and the order under revision, therefore, does not require any interference. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 7.6.2011 KR