Date of reserved for orders : 27.07.2026

Date of pronouncement : 26.10.2026

Date of uploading : 26.10.2026

APHC010468372017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE 26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5115/2017

Between:

1. RAVURI GOVINDA RAJU, GUNTUR DIST, S/O. PURNACHANDRA

RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. VARAVAKATTA, NARASARAOPET

TOWN & MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

1. RAVUTLA KOTESWARA RAO GUNTUR DIST, S/O. GOVINDAIAH,

AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. DOOR.NO.5

NARASARAOPET TOWN & MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the

circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be

pleased to Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated: 29

EP.No.07/2017 in OS.No.179/2008 on t

Civil Judge, Narasaraopet dismissing the EP only on the ground that the EP

schedule property was a patty land granted to the respondent/JDR and there

is a prohibition under Act 9/1977 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned

Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and it cannot be alienated and he

Date of reserved for orders : 27.07.2026

Date of pronouncement : 26.10.2026

Date of uploading : 26.10.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE 26

th

DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR

CHINTALAPUDI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5115/2017

RAVURI GOVINDA RAJU, GUNTUR DIST, S/O. PURNACHANDRA

RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. VARAVAKATTA, NARASARAOPET

GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

RAVUTLA KOTESWARA RAO GUNTUR DIST, S/O. GOVINDAIAH,

AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. DOOR.NO.5 -5-79/13, PATHURU,

NARASARAOPET TOWN & MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the

circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be

pleased to Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated: 29-06-2017 made in

EP.No.07/2017 in OS.No.179/2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior

Civil Judge, Narasaraopet dismissing the EP only on the ground that the EP

schedule property was a patty land granted to the respondent/JDR and there

is a prohibition under Act 9/1977 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned

s(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and it cannot be alienated and he

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3606]

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR

RAVURI GOVINDA RAJU, GUNTUR DIST, S/O. PURNACHANDRA

RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. VARAVAKATTA, NARASARAOPET

...PETITIONER

RAVUTLA KOTESWARA RAO GUNTUR DIST, S/O. GOVINDAIAH,

79/13, PATHURU,

...RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the

circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be

2017 made in

he file of the Court of Principal Senior

Civil Judge, Narasaraopet dismissing the EP only on the ground that the EP

schedule property was a patty land granted to the respondent/JDR and there

is a prohibition under Act 9/1977 of Andhra Pradesh Assigned

s(Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and it cannot be alienated and he

2

has no salable interest in the EP schedule property, the above named

petitioner humbly begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP 27755 OF 2017)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. V S K RAMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. T V SRI DEVI

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR

CHINTALAPUDI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5115 OF 2017

ORDER:

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.).

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

T.V. Sri Devi, learned counsel for the respondent.

Brief Facts of the Case:

3. 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.

4. 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.

4

5. 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

1

, 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.

6. 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.

Arguments:

7. 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

1

C.R.P.No.4321 of 2011 decided on 29.01.2016

5

alienation or mortgage expired in 1993. The respondent executed the

mortgage of the schedule property in 1998, well after that period had

expired.

8. 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.

9. 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

2

. 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.

10. 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

2

C.R.P.No.4668 of 2004, reported in 2007 (6) ALD 81

6

was saleable. He therefore sought to have the impugned order set

aside and the revision petition allowed.

11. 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.

Discussion:

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

on record.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

"Property situated in Guntur District, Narasaraopet

Registration District, Narasaraopet Sub Registration

District, Narasaraopet Municipal Area, Pathuru locality,

7

near Dr Oguri Kotaiah’s Hospital, Narasaraopet Municipal

Old Ward No.1, TS Nos. 715/1 and 715/15, Plot No.37

bounded by: East: Rautla Veera Appaiah’s house - 60

feet; South: Municipal Road - 16 feet; West: Pedukandla

Venkata Ratnachary’s House - 60 feet; North: Drainage

Canal - 16 feet. Within the above boundaries an extent of

106-66 sq. yards = 89-17 sq. meters of vacant site and in

it a daba house was constructed."

16. 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.

Assignment Patta and Conditions:

17. 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:

"There should be a right to the Government to take back

the site allotted to the assignee, if it is transferred to others

or sold or lease or mortgage with out completion of 10

years from the date of issuance of the patta or without

taking prior permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer in

writing, but this condition should not be on development or

taking loans from the Banks by mortgaging the same. In

this regard, the powers must be with the Revenue

Divisional Officer to take back the site and re-entry in to

the same."

18. 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

8

mortgage during the ten-year period unless the assignee obtains the

Revenue Divisional Officer’s prior written permission.

Relevant Statutory Provisions and Amendments:

19. 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:

Section 3(1):

"(1) Where, 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."

Section 3(2):

"(2) No landless poor person shall transfer any assigned

land, and no person shall acquire any assigned land,

either by purchase, gift, Lease (except in the case of

Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation

Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of non-

agriculture purpose), mortgage, exchange or otherwise."

Section 3(2A):

"(2A) No assignee shall transfer any assigned house site,

and no person shall acquire any assigned house site,

either by purchase, gift, Lease (except in the case of

Lease to the Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation

Ltd., for use as deemed fit and including for usage of non-

agriculture purpose), mortgage, exchange or otherwise, till

completion of the period of 20 years from the date of

assignment."

9

Section 3(3):

"(3) Any transfer or acquisition made in contravention of

the provision of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-

section (2A) shall be deemed to be null and void."

Section 3(4):

"(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."

20. 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.

21. 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:

"within a period of twenty (20) years from the date of

assignment in the case of lands assigned for agricultural

purpose, and within a period of ten (10) years from the

date of assignment in case of house sites"

22. 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:

"(i) No landless poor person or his / her legal heir, shall

transfer any land assigned for agricultural purpose, and no

person shall acquire any such assigned land, either by

purchase, gift, lease (except in the case of Lease to the

10

Andhra Pradesh Green Energy Corporation Ltd., for use

as deemed fit and including for usage of non-agriculture

purpose), mortgage, exchange or otherwise, within a

period of twenty (20) years from the date of assignment."

"(ii) After expiry of the above period of twenty years, such

assigned land may be alienated by the assignee or his /

her legal heirs as per the procedure prescribed, without

further reference to the Government."

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

11

26. Condition No.9 specifies a ten-year restriction on alienation or sale. In

Venkataramanappa and others v. T.M. Chalapathi

3

, this Court

considered whether an assignee acquired a saleable interest after ten

years. Paragraph 9 states:

"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. RW-2, the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer,

also conceded that after completion of ten years, the

assignee gets salable interest over the property."

27. 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.

Preliminary Decree and Final Decree Proceedings:

28. 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.

29. 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

3

C.R.P.No.4668 of 2004, reported in 2007 (6) ALD 81

12

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:

"Except the allegation in the counter, there is no proved

evidence on behalf of the respondent to prove that the

petition schedule property is a government land. So, the

objection of the respondent is unproved and untenable.

So, there is no tenable objection in the counter of the

respondent for passing of the final decree. Hence, the

petitioner is entitled for final decree in terms of preliminary

decree dt.17.2.2011.

In the result, the petition is allowed, final decree is passed

in terms of the preliminary decree dt.17.2.2011."

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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

13

the execution stage; nor can execution be refused solely on that basis

without determining the legal effect of the patta and the Act.

33. 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.

34. 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.

G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25.05.2026:

35. 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:

Paragraph 2:

"2. In the reference 6th read above, the Commissioner and

Inspector General of Registration and Stamps (C&IGRS)

had brought to the notice of the Government that

Registering Officers are raising doubts in the matter of

admission of documents relating to assigned house sites

with houses constructed thereon, more particularly in

cases where such properties continue to figure in the

Prohibited Properties List maintained under Section 22-A

of the Registration Act, 1908. The issue of denial of

14

registration on account of inclusion in the prohibited list,

despite the completion of ten (10) years from the date of

assignment, has been causing hardship to the genuine

beneficiaries. The matter was, therefore, examined by the

Government."

Paragraph 3:

"3. The Government, after careful examination of the

matter and in exercise of the powers vested in them,

hereby permit registration of documents relating to

assigned house sites along with houses constructed

thereon, subject to strict compliance with the following

conditions:"

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. The executing Court has to separately determine whether the

respondent could mortgage or otherwise transfer the property after

15

expiry of the period specified in the patta, having regard to the

applicable provisions of the Act.

Conclusion:

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

Result:

42. 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

16

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.

______________________________________

PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI, J

Dt: 26.10.2026

DSV