The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section r48 Riw i51 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pet tion,"the High court may be pleased to extend the time until further orders grante(i in lA.No.3 of 2022 in CRP.No.377 of 2022, vide order dt.11 .03.2022 Counsel for the Petitioner : Gp FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondents: SRI p RAMA SHARANA SHAIiMA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.377 of 2o22 ORDER: Challenging the order dated 02.O9 .2O2I passed in E.P.No. 12 of 2015 in O.S.No. 13 of 2005 by the learned V Additional District Jduge, Kothagudem, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts o[ Lhe case are that the Decree Holder entered into a sale agreement with the Judgment Debtor on

21.06.2004 for Ac.2 22 gts of dry land in Sy.No.405 (Old) l4OS I 12 (New), Paloncha Revenue Village, but thc JDR failed to execute the registered sale deed despite receiving the balance sale consideration. The DHR filed O.S.No. 13 of 2OO5 before the Principal District Court, Khammam, for specific performance, and on 31.08.2010, the Court decreed in favor of the DHR, directing the JDR to execute the sale deed, failing which it could be executed through Court process. Since the Judgment Debtor did not comply, the Decree Holder initiated E.P.No. i2 of 2O15 for execution, ald during the proceedings, the 2 SKS,J C.R P.No.377 of 2022 I Court directed the Tahsildar, Paloncha, to register the sale deed. However, the Tahsildar objected, claiming thr land was Government-assigned and its transfer violated the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfcr) Act, 1977. The DHR countered, stating the land was assig,ned to Narayanapeta Eswaramma under the political sufferers quota per G.O.Ms.No. 1743 on

02.08. 1959, u,hich permitted unrestricted sale, irnd that the 1974 sale deed was legally valid, with subsequer t. purchasers receiving pattadar passbooks and title dceds. Citinl, the ruling of this Court in A.Venkatesan & Others v. Governrrrent of A.P.1, the trial court held that the Tahsildar had no authority to reject the registration, as the Government had not reclai ned the land, and directed him to register the sale decd in fervo- o[ the DHR. Aggrieved by the same, the prescnt Civil Revision P( tition is hled.

3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri P. Rama Krishna Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. ' zooa 121 nLo +zz ././. ,/ 3 sxs,J C.R.P.No.377 ol 2022

4. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to established legal principles and documentary evidence, making it liable to be set aside. The impugned order was passed in an application under Order XXI Rute 32 of CPC in E.P.No. 12 of 2075, wherein the trial Court erroneou sly decided the title of the E. P. schedule property based solely on a lettcr submitted by the petitioner on O8.O7.2O21. He further submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry and present documentary cvidence, which is only permissible under an application hled under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The trial Court also erred in deciding the title of the E.P. schedule property in an application under Ordcr XXI Rule 32 of CPC, which is not the proper procedure for determining ownership and that the trial Court farled to follow due process, deciding the title of the property without conducting a trial.

5. Learned Government Pleader for the petitioner contended that the trial Court did not consider the petitioner's argument that Sy.No.405 of Paloncha Revcnue Village is classified as Government Poramboke land, with a total extent of Ac. 639.O5 4 SKS,J C.R P.No.377 of 2022 gts as per revenue records from 1954-55 to 1987-88. A supplementary Sethwar u'as issued in the year 19A7, incorporating the names of assignees into the revcnue records from 1988 f39 onwards, rendering the registere,l sale deed No.68/I974, dated 04.O4.1974, in favor of Ganesh (ioud. invalid. The trial Court also failed to consider the docurnents of the petitioner proving that the subject land was assigned to Narayanapeta Eswaramma, with a suppleme nt ary Sethwar issued in thc year 1987 b1' the Assistant Director of Revenue Survey Settlcment (Ryotwary) arrd Land Records Department, Khammam. Thc said land was illegally trarsfc rred through registered sale deeds in violation of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) AcL, 1977, rendering such registration null and void. Therefore, the E.P. schedule lar.rl cannot be registered in favor of the DHR.

6. Learned Government Pleader further contenrlcd that while the trial Court acknowledged that thc governnrent assigned Ac.5.O4 gts of lald to Narayanapeta Eswaramm _r in the year 1987 under the political sufferers'quota, it failed tt, consider that the DHR claims title based on a sale deed daLe ) O2.O4.197 4. L - ffiwgw*ri SKS,J c.R.P.No-377 of 2O22 which predates the assignment. The trial Court also erred in holding that the Tahsildar, Pa-Ioncha, had no authority to reject the registration of the E.P. schcdule land, despite admitting that it was assigned in the year 1987 and subsequently transferred through a sale deed in the year 1974 The learned counsel contends that the payment of Rs 5,81,950/- towards stamp duty' registration fee, and transfer duty, atong with the hling of N'J' Stamps worth Rs. 1,OO0/-, does not confer any legal right or title upon the respondents or their vendors Directing the Tahsildar to register the E-P. schedule land in favor of the DHR based on such payments is unlawlul. Thereforc, he prayed the Court to set aside the imPugned order.

7. On the other hand, Iearned counscl for the respondents submitted that there are no inltrmities in the order of the trial Court and the trial Court has rightly rejected the objection of the Tahsildar and passed the order, as such, he prayed the Court to dismiss the civil revision petition' Upon carefully considering the submissions made by both 8. the learned counsel and thoroughly reviewing the material 6 SKS,J C.R P.No.377 oI2022 ,1 available on record, it is noted that the primary issuc in this case pertains to the listing of the disputed land under Sr:ction 22A of the Prohibition of Land Trartsfers Act. According tc the revision petitioner, the land in question has been categrrized under Section 22A, which prohibits its transfer. DesJrite this, the Tahsildar proceeded to register the property in favor of third parties, which raises concerns regarding the legality of such transactions. It is an undisputed fact that the land in Sy.No.4OS is

9. government lald and was assigned to Narayanapeta Eswaramma. The Tahsildar, however, argues that the land was assigned in 1987, and prior to that, a registered sale deed had already been executed by Narayanapeta Eswaranrma. The trial Court did not examine this aspect, and thereforc, no hndings were recorded on the va-lidity of the sale deed or its impact on the Iand assignment.

10. Furthcrmore, it is an admitted fact that th('powers of lhe executing Court are limited to the execution of r lecrees and do not extend to determining questions of title. The ( xecuting Court 1 SKS,J C.R.P.No.377 of 2022 cannot decide issues related to the original ownership or acquisition of the property in an execution petition. Therefore, any argument regarding hou, arrd when Narayanapeta Eswaramma acquired the property is not relevant to the present proceedings, making such contentions legally untenable.

11. The crucial issue in this case revolves around whether the property in question is listed undcr Section 22A. lt the property is included in the prohibited list, the appropriate legal recourse for the concerned parties is to approach the District Collector, who has the authority to review and issue necessary directions to the Tahsildar regarding the registration of such land. In the present case, however, there is no dispute regarding the assignment of the land to Eshwaramma as a political suffercr, to an extent of Ac.5.O4 guntas. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.1743 dated 02.08.1959, stating that political sufferers are peimitted to sell the land assigned to them without any conditions. There are clear instructions in the said G.O. for selling the property, and Eshwaramma already sold the property in the year 7974. The purchasers became pattadars and were issued pattadar. passbooks and title deeds by the Revenue 8 SKS,J C.R P.I{o.377 of 2022 ,ii ;l Department. Furthermore, there is no document hled by the Tahsildar to indicate thzrt the said lald was taken back by the Government. Therefore, the p.p. schedule proFerty is not Government land. As a result, the Registering Authority is required to register the land. There is no illegality ir the order of the trial court. there,lre no merits in the revision petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition ir; dismisscd. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// ( SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The V Additional District Judge, Kothaguem 2. Two CCs to the GP FOR ARBITRATION, High Court for the State of 3 One CC to SRI P RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) ADK/gh w HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 ORDER CRP.No.377 ot 2022 1r,- ,A, ( (\ o <,^ \ o o 01 ,tut 21fr t oA:;e416HE o * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS tcof'a I i I