THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4006 OF 2010 Between : Kondisetti Padma .... PETITIONER A N D Kallepalli Venkateswara Rao …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4006 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) is directed against the order, dated 05.03.2009 in E.P.No.183 of 2006 in O.S.No.322 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, whereunder and whereby, the Execution Petition filed under Order XXI Rules 54, 66, 64 CPC to attach the petition schedule property and sell the same in public auction for realization of the decreetal amount, was allowed. 2. Original Suit O.S.No.322 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalli, Guntur District, was filed by the respondent/decree holder for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,600/-. The suit was decreed on 20.07.2006. As in spite of repeated demands, the petitioner/judgment debtor did not choose to pay the same, the respondent herein filed execution petition and the same was allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the property under attachment is an assigned land and in view of bar under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), the execution of the decree cannot be made in respect of the assigned lands. She relied on a decision reported in M.Anumakka and another V. Turpu Gopal Reddy[1], wherein it was held thus: “Therefore, the view taken by the learned trial Court that since the revision petitioner mortgaged the property to the A.P.Village and Khadi Village Industries it cannot resist the execution of the decree passed in favour of the respondent is totally erroneous. Mortgage of the assigned land by assignee in favour of the organization of the State Government does not in any way authorize a private individual to attach the property in execution of a decree. Further sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act clearly lays down that the provisions of Section 3 shall apply to any transaction 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 authority. As such there is a specific bar against the execution of a decree or order of a civil Court in respect of an assigned land and therefore, any such execution is impermissible according to the above mentioned provisions of the Act”. Basing on the above decision, it is her contention that the petitioner would not get any salable interest over the property as per the condition of the patta after 10 years. Therefore, the above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision reported in Venkata Ramanappa V. T.M.Chalapathi[2], wherein it was held thus: “I have perused the order of the lower Court and various steps taken in the E.P. proceedings and the house site patta issued in favour of the first petitioner in respect of the E.P.schedule property. There is no dispute that it is the land allotted by the Government for construction of a house. There was a prohibition clause under condition No.9 that the property shall not be alienated or otherwise disposed of to any person within a period of ten years. If so, the Government would take back the property without giving any compensation for the constructions or improvements made on it. R.W.2, the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, also conceded that after completion of ten years, the assignee gets salable interest over the property. The patta was granted in the year 1976, therefore, by 1986 the ten years period was over and judgment debtor No.1 became the absolute owner of the property, therefore, the lower Court rightly observed that judgment debtor No.1 has salable interest in the property as on the date of auction of the property. The earlier order passed by the lower Court on 05.04.2004 rejecting the contention of the Judgment Debtors was challenged by them before the High Court of A.P. in C.R.P.No.3511 of 2004 and the High Court passed an order on 09.08.2004, which reads as follows: “Sri P.Narahari Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Recording the submission of the learned counsel, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.” Considering the facts of the case, it is held that judgment debtor therein would get saleable interest after ten years from the date of issuance of patta. In Vaka Punnamma V. Yadavalli Jurala Narasimham[3], wherein it was held thus: “A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions clearly shows that the learned trial Judge committed an error in arriving at a finding that since 10 years had elapsed after the lands were assigned in favour of the petitioner herein in terms of the provisions of the said Act, he had acquired a saleable interest. The aforementioned finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law and thus cannot be sustained”. 5. Section 3(4) of the Act provides that bar under Sub Section 1 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 authority, Section 391) prohibits transfer of assigned land or house site. 6. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have made attachment as absolute as the property under attachment cannot be transferred or alienated. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 05.03.2009 in E.P.No.183 of 2006 in O.S.No.322 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 29, 2011 YVL [1] 2009 (4) ALT 401 [2] 2007(3) L.S.116 [3] 2001 (1) ALT 362