THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.3334 of 2011 Dated 2-12-2011 Between: Reddy Appalasuri. …Petitioner. And: Lolugu Narayanaswamy @ Chinnanaidu. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.3334 of 2011 O R D E R: ON BEING MENTIONED. This Civil Revision Petition has been ﬁled challenging the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Rajam in E.P.No.30 of 2009 in O.S.No.21 of 2002 dated 30.03.2011. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent, who is the DHr filed E.P.No.30 of 2009 under Order 21,Rule 64 and 66(2) of C.P.C to sell the E.P. schedule property which was attached before judgment for realization of the E.P. amount with subsequent interest. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that the attached house is located in a poramboke place belonging to Government and that he constructed a house under Indiramma Housing Scheme and therefore, the same is not attachable. He has also taken a ground that he is an agriculturist and living in the suit house and that except that house he is not having any other house and the house cannot be auctioned under Section 60 of C.P.C. On behalf of the respondent, the decree holder himself was examined as PW.1 and another witness examined as PW.2, and on behalf of the petitioner herein, he was examined as R.W.1 and another witness was examined as R.W.2. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of either side. During the course of cross-examination, the petitioner herein had admitted that except the lands sold in court auction, he has no other lands and at present he is not the owner of any lands. Thus, he has admitted that he has not having any agricultural implements and that he is not an agricultural coolie. Admittedly, the petitioner did not ﬁle any documents to show that his house is in poramboke land, that it was assigned to him and that it comes under the Indiramma Housing Scheme. In view of the same, the lower Court answered the point in favour of the respondent- decree holder. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed. The petitioner-judgment debtor ﬁled a certiﬁcate said to have been issued by Sarpanch to show that the E.P. schedule house is constructed under Indiramm Housing Scheme. He has also ﬁled similar certiﬁcate issued by Panchayat, Reddipeta village, Ponduru Mandal. Now, he has ﬁled a certiﬁcate said to have been issued by Tahasildar, Ponduru Mandal showing that his house is constructed under Indiramma Housing Scheme. It may be a fact that the house of the petitioner is constructed under Indiramma Housing Scheme. But, that does not mean that the house site has been assigned by the Government of A.P. Unless the land is assigned and comes under the provisions of The A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, it cannot be said that such house site cannot be attached. Admittedly, these documents were not ﬁled before the lower Court. Whatever it may be, since no documents have been ﬁled to show that the house site is assigned to the petitioner, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. However since the petitioner claimed that he is an agriculturist and he has no house except the house in dispute and it has to be examined as to whether it is liable to be exempted under Section 60 (1) (c) C.P.C. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been claiming exemption of this house. Therefore, the matter is remanded to lower Court, for de novo consideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence in support of their case. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 2-12-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.3334 of 2011 Dated 2-12-2011