HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3167 OF 2011 ORDER: Judgment Debtors in E.P.No.259 of 2008 in O.S.No.443 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudiwada filed this revision aggrieved by order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, rejecting their counter averments and holding that the Decree holder successfully proved that he is entitled for attachment of the E.P. schedule property and for sale for realization of the E.P. amount under Order 21 Rules 54, 66, 64 and 82 CPC, and posting the matter to 7.6.2010 for filing SPs, ECs and market value certificate. It appears that seeking to reopen the said E.P., the petitioners- Judgment debtors filed E.A.No.195 of 2010 and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioners-Judgment debtors filed CRP No.3943 of 2010 before this Court and this Court dismissed the said revision holding that once E.P.No.259 of 2008 was allowed by granting time to the decree holder for filing SPs., ECs and market value certificate, reopening of the E.P. does not arise and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed in the E.P., they have to avail the remedies available to them under law. Taking note of the above observations, the present revision appears to have been filed stating that the E.P. was allowed only on the ground that the petitioners-Judgment debtors failed to file any material to substantiate their claim that the E.P. schedule property is an assigned land and it is not alienable. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question is not liable to attachment in view of the prohibition contained in Act 9 of 1977 (A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act). It is well settled that assigned land cannot be attached. In Vaka Punnamma V. Yadavali Jurala Narasimham[1], this Court while interpreting the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 held that under Section 3 of the Act, the transfer of the assigned land is prohibited and the provisions of Section 3 of the Act shall apply to any transaction of the nature referred to in Section 3(2) of the Act, in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or any award or order of any other authority. The issue as to whether the land in dispute is assigned or not is a question of fact to be decided by the executing Court. If there is any objection with regard to the attachment or sale, the remedy that is available to the petitioners is to file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 for adjudication of claims to, or objections to attachment of the property or for sale of the same. Such an objection with regard to the salability of the assigned land can be raised at any time before the sale is concluded or even after the sale as the said sale has been recognized as void sale. But, the approach of the petitioners without raising any objection with regard to the salability of the land in question before the Court below by filing appropriate application is not tenable. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC with all necessary documents. On filing such application, it is incumbent upon the Court below to adjudicate as to whether the property in question is liable to be sold or not. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed granting liberty as indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:19th August, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:3167 OF 2011 19.8.2011 Nn [1] 2002(1) ALD 306