HARIHANA BAZARAPPA Vs. H CHAKARALA RANGANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni in E.P. No.20 of 2000 in O.S. No.60 of 1995 dated 20-12-2001.

(2.) The revision petitioner brought a house property and a landed property of the judgment debtor for sale through the above execution petition. The judgment debtor pleaded that they are the lands assigned to him by the Government, therefore, they cannot be brought to sale under Court auction. The Execution Court while going through the xerox copies of the assignment deeds observed that the judgment-debtor has not filed the original assignment orders to verify whether the land was assigned to him subject to the condition of non-alienability. The Court while further observing that those questions of fact have to be proved by evidence including the plea of the judgment- debtor that he is a small farmer and the debt stood discharged and regarding the correctness of the decree-holder's claim etc, posted the matter for enquiry on 2-1-2002. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court preferred this revision petition contending that the lower Court ought not to have passed the said order and should have conducted the auction for the sale of the property.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even if it is considered that properties which are proposed to be brought to sale are the lands assigned by the Government, unless there is a clause that the property is inalienable and not transferable permanently, there cannot be any bar for bringing those properties in Court auction sale. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Rambagh Satyanarayana v. Joint Collector, R.R. District, Hyderabad, 2000 (2) ALD 433, wherein this Court while considering the scope of Section 2(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') held that when there is no condition imposed in the order of assignment prohibiting transfer of land, the land is not assigned land, and therefore, the subsequent transfer is not invalid. The learned Single Judge laid stress for the presence of a condition that the assigned land is not transferable. There is another judgment of this Court rendered by another Single Judge in Vaka Punnamma v. Yadavali Jurala Narasimham, 2001 (1) ALD 306, wherein this Court while considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act held that simply because ten years elapsed from the date of assignment of a land to the judgment debtor, it cannot be said that he acquired a saleable interest in the land, therefore, the land cannot be sold in execution of a decree.