Ravuri Govinda Raju vs Ravutla Koteswara Rao

The revision is directed against the order dated 29.06.2017 passed in E.P.No.7 of 2017 in O.S.No.179 of 2008 by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, dismissing the Execution Petition. The revision petitioner is the decree-holder (D.Hr.), and the respondent is the judgment-debtor (J.Dr.).

Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, learned counsel for the respondent.

The revision petitioner filed O.S.No.179 of 2008 before the trial Court to recover the amount due from the respondent under a mortgage of the E.P. schedule property. After contest, the trial Court partly decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree in favour of the revision petitioner. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.577 of 2015 seeking a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree, and final decree was passed.

The respondent did not pay the decretal amount even after the Court passed the final decree. The revision petitioner therefore filed the E.P. to execute the decree by bringing the mortgaged E.P. schedule property to sale to realise the decretal amount. The respondent appeared in the execution proceedings and objected to execution against the schedule property on the ground that it was assigned land. He contended that he had no saleable interest in the property and relied on a certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Narasaraopet, stating that the property was prohibited from registration.

On considering the facts and the defence raised in the execution proceedings, the executing Court observed that the Government had assigned the E.P. schedule property in Survey Nos.715/1 and 715/15 to the respondent on 14.08.1983 and that the property was prohibited from registration and alienation. The trial Court considered the decision in Vemula Ankamma Rao v. Nomula Prasada Rao^{11.C.R.P.No.4321 of 2011 decided on 29.01.2016}, which the revision petitioner had relied on. The learned Judge held that the decision did not apply because the facts were different. According to the learned Judge, the property in that case had been brought to execution after ten years from the date of assignment, whereas the revision petitioner had not produced any record in the present case to show that the property could be alienated after ten years.

The trial Court observed that the property had been mortgaged in favour of the revision petitioner, but no document had been produced to show that the prohibition against alienation lasted only for ten years. The respondent relied on a certificate issued by the registration authorities stating that the property in Survey Nos.715/1 and 715/15 could not be registered. As the revision petitioner had produced no material to establish that the respondent had a saleable interest or that execution could proceed against the property, the learned Judge dismissed the Execution Petition. The revision petitioner challenges that order in this revision.

Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the trial Court had improperly dismissed the E.P. He argued that the assignment patta granted to the respondent prohibited alienation of the assigned land only for ten years. The Government granted the assignment in 1983, and the ten-year prohibition against alienation or mortgage expired in 1993. The respondent executed the mortgage of the schedule property in 1998, well after that period had expired.

The revision petitioner obtained the preliminary decree on 17.02.2011 and the final decree on 30.11.2015, and filed the Execution Petition in 2017. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had objected before the trial Court that the property was assigned land. The trial Court framed specific issues, including Issue No.2 concerning the assigned land. The respondent did not challenge either the preliminary decree or the final decree, even though the trial Court passed the final decree despite the objection that the property was Government land. The respondent has now raised the same objection in the execution proceedings.

Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had raised this issue during the trial and that the executing Court could not reopen it in the present proceedings. He relied on Venkataramanappa and others v. T.M. Chalapathi^{22.C.R.P.No.4668 of 2004, reported in 2007 (6) ALD 81}. In that case, this Court considered whether assigned land could be alienated and held that, after ten years had elapsed from the grant of the patta, the judgment-debtor had acquired a saleable interest in the schedule property. The property could therefore be brought to sale.

According to learned counsel, the principle laid down in Venkataramanappa’s case cited supra applies because the respondent executed the mortgage after the ten-year restriction had expired. As the respondent failed to repay the loan, the revision petitioner sought to bring the property to sale in execution. Learned counsel argued that the learned Judge misinterpreted the applicable provisions and wrongly placed on the revision petitioner the burden of proving that the property was saleable. He therefore sought to have the impugned order set aside and the revision petition allowed.

Smt. T.V. Sri Devi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, the trial Court had correctly found that the respondent had no saleable interest in the schedule property because it was assigned land. He argued that the law prohibited alienation and that no one could sell the property covered by the relevant survey numbers. According to him, the decision relied on by the revision petitioner do not apply to the present case. Although the respondent had no other property from which to realise the decretal amount, the schedule property could not be alienated; because it appeared in the list of prohibited properties. He therefore submitted that the Court could not execute the decree by selling the schedule property and sought dismissal of the revision petition.

I have heard learned counsels for both sides and perused the material on record.

The revision petitioner succeeded in the suit, obtained a preliminary decree and thereafter applied for a final decree. The trial Court allowed that application and passed the final decree in favour of the revision petitioner. The respondent did challenge either preliminary or final decree. The decrees therefore, crystallised the revision petitioner’s right to realise the decretal amount in accordance with law.

The revision petitioner relied on the mortgage and, as a secured creditor, filed the Execution Petition to recover the amount advanced to the respondent by selling the mortgaged property.

The E.P. describes the schedule property as follows:

The respondent resisted the Execution Petition with a counter. He contended that the Government had assigned the property in Survey Nos.715/1 and 715/15 to him on 14.08.1983. According to him, the property could not be registered or alienated because it was assigned land and he had no saleable interest in it. The certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar also stated that registration of the schedule property was prohibited.

A copy of the patta granted to the respondent is on record. The translated version of Condition No.9 of the patta reads as follows:

Condition No.9 provides that, if the respondent transfers, leases or mortgages the assigned land before the expiry of ten years from the date of the patta without obtaining the prior written permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Government may resume the site. The condition excludes mortgages raised from banks for development. Thus, subject to that exception, the patta restricts transfer, alienation or mortgage during the ten-year period unless the assignee obtains the Revenue Divisional Officer’s prior written permission.

The present matter concerns the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act No.9 of 1977), as subsequently amended (hereinafter, “the Act”). Section 3 prohibits the transfer of assigned lands. The relevant provisions of Section 3 are reproduced below:

Before the amendment, the original 1977 Act prohibited the transfer of land assigned by the Government to landless poor persons for cultivation or as house sites. Any transfer of such land was deemed never to have taken place, and no right or title vested in the transferee. The Act prohibited the transfer or acquisition of assigned land by purchase, gift, lease, mortgage, exchange or otherwise.

The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 (Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.9 of 2023), promulgated on 27.07.2023 and published on 31.07.2023, subsequently amended Section 2(1) of the Act by prescribing a period of twenty years for lands assigned for agricultural purposes and ten years for house sites. The relevant portion reads as follows:

The Ordinance also substituted Section 3(2) to restrict the transfer of assigned agricultural lands during the twenty years following the date of assignment. The relevant provisions read as follows:

Section 3(4) expressly applies Section 3 to transactions of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), including transactions in execution of a decree or order of a civil Court. The question whether the schedule property can be brought to sale must, therefore, be considered with reference to the Act, the conditions of the patta and the amendments applicable to the assignment in question.

Condition No.9 of the patta provides for a ten-year restriction on alienation. The schedule property is Plot No.37 in Survey Nos.715/1 and 715/15, which the Government allotted to the respondent for construction of a house. The effect of the condition after expiry of ten years must, however, be considered along with the applicable provisions of the Act.

The patta requires the assignee to construct a house within six months from its issue on 14.08.1983. If the assignee fails to construct or occupy the house within the prescribed period, the consequences specified in the patta would follow. No specific objection alleges that the assignee failed to construct a house on Plot No.37 in Survey Nos.715/1 and 715/15. Indeed, the E.P. schedule describes the property as a vacant site on which a daba house was constructed. The property is therefore a house site with a house, not agricultural land.

Condition No.9 specifies a ten-year restriction on alienation or sale. In Venkataramanappa and others v. T.M. Chalapathi^{33.C.R.P.No.4668 of 2004, reported in 2007 (6) ALD 81}, this Court considered whether an assignee acquired a saleable interest after ten years. Paragraph 9 states:

The Government assigned the property on 14.08.1983, and the respondent executed the registered mortgage deed on 16.07.1998, after expiry of the ten-year period specified in Condition No.9. The revision petitioner therefore contends that the respondent had acquired a saleable interest and could validly mortgage the property. The said contention has to be determined in the light of the statutory provisions governing assigned house sites, including the provisions applicable to a transaction in execution of a decree.

During the preliminary-decree proceedings, the trial Court framed an issue as to whether the mortgaged property was assigned land. The trial Court noted that the Government had granted the patta to the respondent on 14.08.1983, but that the respondent had not produced the assignment patta in the suit. The trial Court did not specifically decide the issue and left it open.

The trial Court partly decreed the suit while leaving that issue open. During the final-decree proceedings, the respondent again objected that the property was Government land and that the Government had issued a patta in his favour. The trial Court framed the point whether the petitioner was entitled to a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree dated 17.02.2011. The finding on that point in I.A.No.577 of 2015 reads as follows:

Neither party appears to have produced the assignment patta during the preliminary-decree or final-decree proceedings. Although the respondent contended that the Government had assigned the property and that it could not be alienated, he did not produce the patta in support of that objection. The trial Court passed the preliminary and final decrees on the material then available, but left open the issue whether the property was assigned land.

The parties do not dispute that the Government allotted the property to the respondent as a house site and that a daba house was constructed on it. The respondent produced the assignment patta only during execution and relied on it to resist the decree. Though an executing Court cannot go behind the decree, it must consider a properly raised objection as to whether the decree can lawfully be executed against the schedule property.

The respondent has not explained why he did not produce the assignment patta during the earlier proceedings. The executing Court was to examine the objection, with applicable statutory provisions.. The objection cannot be rejected merely because the patta was produced at the execution stage; nor can execution be refused solely on that basis without determining the legal effect of the patta and the Act.

The learned Judge dismissed the E.P. on the ground that the schedule property was assigned land and that the Joint Sub-Registrar’s certificate showed that it was prohibited from registration. The learned Judge also found that the revision petitioner had not produced material to establish that the restriction under Condition No.9 was limited to ten years. The effect of the patta and the certificate must be assessed in the light of the governing statutory provisions.

It is relevant that neither the assignment patta nor the Joint Sub-Registrar’s certificate was produced during the preliminary-decree or final-decree proceedings, and that the trial Court had left open the issue concerning assignment. Their production during execution therefore requires the executing Court to consider the objection under Section 47 CPC, without going behind the decree and without overlooking any statutory bar to the proposed sale.

The Government subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Lands-I) Department, dated 25.05.2026, permitting the registration of documents relating to assigned house sites with houses constructed on them, subject to the conditions prescribed in the G.O. Paragraphs 2 and 3 state as follows:

The G.O. prescribes conditions for registration, including production of the original assignment patta or a certified copy, proof that ten years have elapsed from the date of assignment, a House Tax Receipt or other record evidencing construction of a house, identification of the property by plot and survey numbers, and verification that the executant is the original assignee or the assignee’s legal heir. It permits registration, subject to those conditions, notwithstanding inclusion in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The scope of the G.O. must be kept distinct from the question whether a mortgage or court-ordered sale is permissible under the Assigned Lands Act.

In the present case, Plot No.37 in Survey Nos.715/1 and 715/15 was assigned to the respondent for construction of a house, and the E.P. schedule records that a house was constructed on the site. The mortgage was executed after expiry of the ten-year period specified in the patta. Since the executing Court relied on the Joint Sub-Registrar’s certificate, it must now consider whether the schedule property satisfies the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25.05.2026 and what legal effect, if any, the G.O. has on the objection to execution.

The executing Court has to separately determine whether the respondent could mortgage or otherwise transfer the property after expiry of the period specified in the patta, having regard to the applicable provisions of the Act.

The respondent did not produce the assignment patta or the Joint Sub-Registrar’s certificate during the preliminary-decree or final-decree proceedings, and the trial Court left open the issue whether the property was assigned land. At the execution stage, the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree; it has to decide under Section 47 CPC whether the decree can lawfully be executed by sale of the schedule property, having regard to the terms of the patta and the applicable statutory provisions.

Section 3(4) of the Act refers transactions undertaken in execution of a decree or order of a civil Court. The executing Court shall therefore examine the applicability of that provision, the restriction in Condition No.9 of the patta, the amendments applicable to the assignment and the effect of G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25.05.2026. Before ordering or proceeding with a sale under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC, the executing Court has to record a reasoned finding on permissibility of proposed sale is permissible in law. The G.O., which concerns registration subject to prescribed conditions, may not by itself be treated as conclusive of the question of saleability or executability.

The observations are made only in this application. It is made clear that execution Court is at liberty to proceed as per due procedure of law without getting influenced by the findings of this Court.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 29.06.2017 passed in E.P.No.7 of 2017 in O.S.No.179 of 2008 by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, is set aside. The Execution Petition is restored to the file of the executing Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law independently.

No order as to costs.

All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.