THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6537 of 2006 Dated:- 03rd February, 2011 Between:- Vadakatu Geetha Saraswathi and others …Petitioners AND Dangeti Ramakrishna and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6537 of 2006 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 11.09.2006 passed in E.A.No.424 of 2006 in E.A.No.1984 of 2005 in E.P.No.157 of 1998 in O.S.No.536 of 1993 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the defendant in the Original Suit being O.S.No.536 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The suit seems to have been based on a pro-note said to have been executed by the second respondent herein. The said suit was decreed. Then, the first respondent herein filed E.P.No.157 of 1998. It appears that during the pendency of the suit itself, the property of the second respondent was attached. The house number of the second respondent herein is shown as D.No.20-1105 situated at Bathina Subbarao Colony, Dowleshwaram, East Godavari District. Of course, the door number of the first petitioner herein – Vadakatu Geetha Saraswathi was also shown as D.No.20-1105, i.e., the same door number pertaining to the second respondent herein. As far the door numbers of other petitioners are concerned, the door number of the second petitioner – Puthina Sridevi is shown as D.No.20-1105/1, door number of third petitioner – Pithani Raja Rajeswari is shown as D.No.20-1105/2 and the door number of the fourth petitioner – Govindapudi Siva Kumar is shown as 20-1105/3. Separate boundaries have been shown to each of the houses. As far as the first petitioner’s house is concerned, the boundary is shown as East: Puthina Sridevi, South: Chebrolu Yona, West: Revu Anjali and North: Road. Though the petitioners have filed Pattas of their house sites dated 31.01.2006 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommuru, titled as ‘ Nivesina Sthala Swadeena Dhruveekarana Pathram’, but the Court below commented that the boundaries of the petition schedule property are not tallying with the E.P. Schedule Property. 3. The Court below, holding that the E.P. Schedule Property was attached in the year 1993 itself and that the certificates issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bommuru Mandal to the effect that for the past 12 years the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be considered as true possession, dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners and refused to raise the attachment. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed. 4. As far as the assigned lands are concerned, the law is well settled. Section 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 reads as follows:- 3. Prohibition of transfer assigned lands:- (1) When before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purpose of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed to transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. (2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land, either by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage exchange or otherwise. (3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be deemed to be null and void. (4) The provision of this section shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) in execution of a decree or order of a civil court of any award of order of any authority. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site on the date of such commencement. 5. Thus, it is settled law that transfer of assigned lands has been prohibited. It is also well settled that such property cannot be attached, even in execution of decree of civil Court. In the instant case, however, the question remains whether the property attached and the property assigned to the petitioners is one and the same or different properties. As referred above, the door number of the first petitioner and the door number of the second respondent is one and the same. Thus, in the above circumstances, the impugned order liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for the purpose of locating the assigned lands of the petitioner with the help of Mandal Surveyor and revenue officials. If the attached property has been assigned to the petitioner, then the attachment shall be raised and the property cannot be sold, even in execution of the decree and if the property attached is not assigned land, then the Court below may proceed with the E.P. The petitioners, if so advised, may file an application before the Court below to file the amendment application to incorporate appropriate provisions of law or they may file fresh application and the Court below shall permit both the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their rival contentions. Needless to say that the decree-holder is always at liberty to take other steps for realising the decreetal amount against the second respondent, even if the claim application filed by the petitioners is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 03rd February, 2011 Bvv