HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.4884 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13-09-2010 passed in E.P.No.76 of 2006 in O.S.No.140 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 2. The petitioners are the judgment debtors who have suffered a decree in O.S.No.140 of 2002, for recovery of an amount of Rs.38,132/-. The said judgment has become final. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein filed E.P.No.76 of 2006 for recovery of the E.P. amount of Rs.51,791/- by attaching E.P. schedule house property of an extent of Ac.0.2 ½ cents i.e. 75 square yards, situated at bearing door No.1-1251, 1st ward, Mangalagiri town. The executing Court attached the E.P. schedule property by its order dated 07-04-2009, and as against the said order, petitioners filed C.R.P.No.3224 of 2009 on the file of this Court contending that the E.P. schedule property is assigned property and the same was given by the Government in favour of the father of one late M.Durga Rao (petitioners herein are the legal heirs of Durga Rao). Ex.B-1, D.K.Patta, was given in favour of Muthyala Appalaswamy, who is the father of Durga Rao and the ancestor of the petitioners and in the assigned land, the house was constructed and therefore, the E.P. schedule property is not liable for sale even for execution of the decree. It is further stated that the said E.P. schedule property was mortgaged previously in favour of one K.Bavaiah who filed the suit for recovery of the mortgage debt, and the said Bavaiah brought the said schedule property to the sale and then, the judgment debtors discharged the mortgage and therefore, the mortgage was released. 3. It is the case of the petitioners-J.Drs. that the said property is an assigned land and therefore, as per the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, (for brevity ‘the Act’) the assigned lands are not alienable eternally and even in execution of a money decree also, the assigned lands cannot be sold. The assigned land cannot also be mortgaged or alienated in any manner. As the said question that whether the said land can be sold in execution of the decree or not, if it is an assigned land, has not been considered, C.R.P. No.3224 of 2009 was allowed and the order of the E.P. dated 07-04-2009 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the executing Court for fresh consideration and to disposal of the matter, after giving opportunity both the sides. Pursuant to the said remand order, the executing Court again considered the matter and passed the impugned order dated 13-09-2010 in E.P.No.76 of 2006 in O.S.No.140 of 2006. 4. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioners-J.Drs., the judgment debtor No.3, Muthyala Leelavati, was examined as R.W.1 and another Mohd. Gouse was examined as R.W.2 and marked Exs.B- 1 to B-5. Assignment Deed in D.K.No.1379, dated 08-09-1969 was also filed under Ex.B-1. 5. As per the condition-9 of the said assignment deed, the said assigned land is prohibited to be alienated for a period of ten years in any manner. 6. It is a case of the 1st respondent-decree holder that there is no prohibition for alienation after a period of ten years from the date of issuance of patta and it is true that if there no such condition of prohibition of alienation of land for a fixed period of ten years, it cannot be sold forever. As the Government fixed the prohibition of sale for a period of ten years only, there cannot be any legal impediment under the provisions of the Act for alienation of the said land after the prohibitory period of ten years. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners-J.Drs. submits that the executing Court has not considered the E.P. afresh by setting aside the sale and following the entire procedure by issuing fresh sale notification and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in Chinnamsetty Murali Krishna v. District Collector, Kadapa District[1]. Wherein, this Court set aside the sale held by the Cooperative Central Bank in respect of the assigned land. In the said case, there was a total prohibition of assignment of the land in question but whereas, in the present case, prohibition of alienation of the land is only for a period of ten years and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prohibition of alienation continues even after ten years. 8. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the question as to whether the E.P. schedule property which was originally assigned in favour of Durga Rao, who is the ancestor of the petitioners, is alienable or not, was not yet decided in the earlier order of the executing Court, dated 07-04-2009, and therefore, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The assignment deed itself has been marked as Ex.B-1. After remanding, the trial Court has rightly considered that the prohibition was only ten years for alienation and therefore, the sale of said assigned land is not illegal. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners that the imposition of prohibition of ten years is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 9. Thus, I am of the opinion that in the absence of any total prohibition alienating the said assigned land as per the DK Patta, it cannot be said that the sale of the said land is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 29-10-2011 Kvr [1] 2008 (2) ALD 549