IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1974 of 2007 Between: Suguru Narayana .. Petitioner AND Smt. Subbamma .. Respondent Petition against the order passed in E.P. No.8 of 2006 in O.S. No.36 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, dated 27-02-2007. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Sri C. Prakash Reddy, Advocate for the respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: The order of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur in E.P. No.8 of 2006 in O.S. No.36 of 2004, dated 27-02-2007 is the subject of this revision petition. The execution petition was filed for attachment and sale of the execution petition schedule property of 2.5 acres in S.No.3/A of Muchumari village for recovery of the decree debt from the revision petitioner herein and the revision petitioner contended before the executing Court that he had no saleable interest in the land, as it was an assigned land covered by the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 13-04-1993 in No.227/93/1402. He claimed the pattadar passbook and title deed passbook also to have been issued in his favour for the same land. During the enquiry, the executing Court examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1, B.1 to B.3, X.1 and X.2. The executing Court passed the impugned order referring to the rival contentions and evidence and noting that the revision petitioner mortgaged the property in S.No.3/A to an extent of two acres under Ex.A.1, dated 15-07-1998 describing the same as his self-acquired property, which he tried to explain otherwise in his evidence as R.W.1 herein. The executing Court also referred to the survey number and extent mentioned in Exs.B.1 to B.3, X.1, X.2 and A.1 not tallying to reasonably probablise that EX.B.1 property is the same as the execution petition schedule property. The executing Court, therefore, was of the opinion that the execution petition schedule property is not the assigned land covered by Ex.B.1 and on that premise the executing Court directed next step for filing of sale papers and encumbrance certificate. The revision petitioner challenges the said order herein on the ground that the assigned land could not have been subject of even alienation by a Court in violation of the provisions of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 and even Ex.B.1 mortgage earlier is void. The revision petitioner claimed that the identity of the property is not in dispute and he is not claimed to be owning any other property and therefore, the execution could not have been proceeded with. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder are heard. In so far as the prohibition against alienation of any sort of assigned land covered by the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 is concerned, there is absolutely no dispute and such an assigned land governed by the provisions of the Statute could not have been subject of any alienation even at the instance of a Court. However, the question herein is whether the execution petition schedule property and the assigned land are identical. The impugned order shows that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is about the execution petition schedule property being not an assigned land and being the property claimed to be the self-acquired property of the revision petitioner subjected to mortgage on that count under Ex.A.1. The claims of the revision petitioner, on the other hand, as noted by the executing Court are about the execution petition schedule property and Ex.B.1 D-Form patta property being one and the same, in respect of which Ex.B.2 title deed and Ex.B.3 pattadar pass book were issued. The executing Court found the entries in Exs.X.1 and X.2, which are also public documents, to be varying in description in respect of survey number and extent and therefore, it came to the conclusion on the probabilities that it is abundantly clear that the property covered by Ex.B.1 is not the execution petition schedule property. Without going further into the factual controversy, if the decree holder and the executing Court are of the confirmed opinion that the execution petition schedule property is different from Ex.B.1 property and if the same is clarified in the terms of sale to be settled by the executing Court and in the proclamation of sale to be issued by the executing Court, any ambiguity would be cleared and either the decree holder or any prospective purchaser would, therefore, be clear that Ex.B.1 D-Form patta property is not the one that is being sold in execution of the decree. Ex.B.1 property is one which is covered by the provisions of A.P. Act 9 of 1977 and therefore, such a clarification would ensure that the execution petition schedule property being sold is not an assigned land, alienation of which is prohibited. As there was no warranty of title in an execution sale, the purchaser in execution will make his purchase at his risk and expense, of such property covered by the execution petition. Therefore, while not interfering with the impugned order, dated 27-02-2007 in E.P. No.8 of 2006 in O.S. No.36 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, the executing Court is directed to specify, while settling the terms of sale and also in the proclamation of sale and in all further proceedings in execution of the decree in this execution petition, that the execution petition schedule property being brought to sale is not the land assigned under the D-Form patta, dated 13-04-1993 in proceedings No.227/93/1402 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and is different and distinct. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-06-2010 Svv