THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No. 215 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order, dated 29-10-2010, passed in E.P.No.834 of 2008 in O.S.No.1497 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this revision are that the petitioner-D.Hr filed the suit for recovery of money and obtained a decree against the 1st respondent-J.Dr. Since the 1st respondent failed to pay the decretal amount, he filed the execution petition under Order 21 Rules 22, 54 and 66 CPC for attachment and sale of E.P. schedule property for realization of the decretal amount. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that the property cannot be sold under Court auction as it is exempted under Section 3 (4) of the AP Assigned (Prohibition of Transfer) Lands Act, 1977 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Later since the 1st respondent-J.Dr died, the petitioner-D.Hr impleaded the respondents 2 and 3 as his legal heirs and filed the present revision petition against the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the property was assigned on payment of market value, and therefore, the provisions of the Act have no application to the facts of the present case and hence, the revision may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that as the conditions stipulated in the patta were not fulfilled, the land was resumed and that the patta relating to the said land was granted in favour of one S.Suvarna Rani under Ex.B-2 and therefore, when the petitioner-D.Hr failed to establish that the J.Dr. is having salable interest in the property, the trial Court rightly dismissed the execution petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the order under impugned, and, hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is not in dispute that the E.P. schedule property is assigned property. According to the petitioner-D.Hr, the assignment of the land was effected by the Government on taking into consideration the provisions under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act reads as follows: “1) Whether before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purposes of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed of 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 provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall be deemed to be null and void. 4) The provisions 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 or of any award or order of any other 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.” Even assuming for a moment that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 3 of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case is to be accepted, but still as seen from the document filed by the 1st respondent-J.Dr. under Ex.B-2, it is clear that self-same property was given patta in favour of third parities. Therefore, under such circumstances, the property cannot be sold in execution of the decree when the 1st respondent J.Dr. has no salable interest in the property now sought to be sold in the execution of the decree. As the petitioner-D.Hr. failed to establish that the 1st respondent-J.Dr. has got right, title or interest over the property now sought to be sold, the question of execution proceedings to sell the same does not arise. Therefore, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the impugned order and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner-D.Hr to proceed with execution of the decree in accordance with law. No costs. __________________ 8th August 2011 kvr