THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4278 OF 2011 ORDER: The respondent obtained decree for realisation of amount in O.S.No.131 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. For executing the decree, he instituted E.P.No.441 of 2010 for Rs.3,63,340/-. In the said petition, the petitioner raised a plea that the petition schedule house, which is sought to be attached and sold in execution of the decree, is assigned land; it was originally assigned to one Tangavelu; the JDR purchased it under registered sale deed dated 04.05.1993 and therefore, Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (“the Act” for brevity), bars the attachment and sale of the assigned land. In support thereof, he produced a Photostat copy of patta granted to the assignee. The trial Court rejected the plea and made attachment absolute. The order of the executing Court dated 03.08.2011 is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner (JDR) and the counsel for the respondent (DHR). During the course of their submissions, the decision of this Court in Vaka Punnamma v. Yadavali Jurala Narasimham [1] is brought to the notice of this Court. Therein it was held that the assigned land is not alienable even after lapse of ten years. Further, a bare perusal of Section 3 of the Act would show that the transfer of assigned land is prohibited and the prohibition also applies to execution sales. But in the case on hand, as seen from the impugned order the parties dispute the nature of the land. The petitioner (JDR) produced only Photostat copy of patta granted to the original assignee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for adducing further evidence before the lower Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The parties be given opportunity to adduce evidence with regard to their respective positions and then the lower Court may decide the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14th December 2011 RRB [1] 2001 (1) ALD 306