Assigned House Sites and Execution of Mortgage Decrees: High Court Orders Fresh Examination of Statutory Restrictions

• Case / Party Name: Ravuri Govinda Raju v. Ravutla Koteswara Rao
• Court Name: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
• Case Number(s): Civil Revision Petition No. 5115 of 2017
• Citation: Not available
• Coram / Judges: Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, Single Judge
• Judgment Authored By: Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, order
• Date of Decision: 26 October 2026
• Nature of Proceedings: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
• Letters Patent / Appeals: None
• Counsel Appearances: V.S.K. Rama Rao for the petitioner; T.V. Sri Devi for the respondent
• Outcome: Allowed; impugned order set aside and execution petition restored for fresh consideration

HEADNOTE

Key Proposition: An executing court considering the sale of assigned land must determine the effect of the applicable assignment conditions and statutory restrictions, including Section 3(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, before permitting execution.

Catchwords:

• Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Section 3(4) 
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 47 
• Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act – Assignment patta – Ten-year restriction
• Registration Act, 1908 – Section 22-A – G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25 May 2026

Headnote: The decree-holder sought execution of a mortgage decree by sale of a house site assigned to the judgment-debtor in 1983. The executing court dismissed the execution petition because the property was treated as assigned land subject to restrictions on transfer. The High Court examined the assignment patta, amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, and G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25 May 2026. It held that the executing court must independently determine whether the proposed sale is legally permissible, including the effect of Section 3(4) of the Act and the relevant patta conditions. The revision was allowed, the dismissal order set aside, and the execution petition restored for fresh consideration.

BACKGROUND / SYNOPSIS

Key facts

• The petitioner filed O.S.No.179 of 2008 to recover money due under a mortgage over the disputed property.
• The trial court passed a preliminary decree on 17 February 2011 and a final decree on 30 November 2015.
• The respondent did not satisfy the decree.
• The petitioner filed E.P.No.7 of 2017 seeking sale of the mortgaged property.
• The respondent objected that the property was assigned land and could not be alienated.
• The property had been assigned by the Government on 14 August 1983 as a house site, and a house had been constructed on it. 

Procedural history

• O.S.No.179 of 2008 instituted for recovery under the mortgage.
• Preliminary decree passed on 17 February 2011.
• Final decree passed on 30 November 2015.
• Execution petition filed in 2017.
• Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, dismissed E.P.No.7 of 2017 on 29 June 2017.
• Decree-holder challenged the dismissal before the High Court.
• High Court allowed the revision on 26 October 2026 and restored the execution petition for fresh consideration. (Paras 3–6, 42)
• Impugned order and relief sought
• The petitioner challenged the dismissal of the execution petition and sought permission to proceed against the mortgaged property to recover the decretal amount.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

• Whether the executing court correctly dismissed execution solely because the property was assigned land and appeared on the prohibited-properties list.
• Whether the expiry of the ten-year restriction under Condition No.9 of the assignment patta established that the property could be mortgaged or sold in execution.
• What effect the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, its amendments, and G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25 May 2026 had on the proposed sale.
• Whether the executing court had to reconsider the objection under Section 47 CPC and record a reasoned finding before ordering a sale.

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

Petitioner / Decree-holder

• The assignment patta restricted alienation for ten years, and the restriction expired in 1993.
• The mortgage was executed on 16 July 1998, after expiry of that period.
• The respondent had raised the assigned-land issue during earlier proceedings but had not successfully challenged the preliminary or final decree.
• The executing court could not reopen matters already determined and had wrongly placed the burden of proving saleability on the decree-holder.
• Relied on Venkataramanappa v. T.M. Chalapathi, C.R.P.No.4668 of 2004, reported in 2007 (6) ALD 81.

Respondent / Judgment-debtor

• The property was assigned land subject to statutory restrictions on transfer.
• The property appeared in the prohibited-properties list and the registration authorities had certified that registration was prohibited.
• The respondent argued that the property could not be sold in execution and sought dismissal of the revision. 

COURT'S OBSERVATIONS & ANALYSIS

Re: Issue (i): Executability of the decree

• The petitioner held preliminary and final decrees that had not been challenged by the respondent.
• The executing court could not go behind the decree, but it was required to examine a properly raised objection concerning whether the decree could lawfully be executed against the scheduled property.
• The assignment patta and registration certificate had not been produced during the earlier decree proceedings, and the trial court had left the assignment issue open.
• The objection could neither be rejected solely because the patta was produced at execution nor accepted without examining its legal effect. 
• Held: The executing court must determine executability under Section 47 CPC while respecting the decree and applicable statutory restrictions. 

Re: Issue (ii): Ten-year restriction under the patta

• Condition No.9 of the patta imposed a ten-year restriction on transfer, lease or mortgage, subject to its stated exceptions and the possibility of prior written permission.
• The mortgage was executed in 1998, after the ten-year period from the 1983 assignment.
• The Court considered Venkataramanappa v. T.M. Chalapathi, which addressed saleable interest after expiry of a ten-year restriction.
• However, expiry of the patta restriction had to be considered alongside the applicable provisions of the Assigned Lands Act. 
• Held: Expiry of the ten-year patta restriction did not, by itself, conclusively determine whether the proposed sale was permissible under the Act. 

Re: Issue (iii): Statutory amendments and G.O.Ms.No.306

• Section 3(4) of the Assigned Lands Act expressly addresses transactions of the relevant nature undertaken in execution of a civil court decree or order.
• The Court considered the amendments that introduced different restriction periods for agricultural land and house sites.
• G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25 May 2026 permitted registration of qualifying assigned house sites with constructed houses, subject to specified conditions.
• The Government Order concerned registration; it did not, by itself, settle whether the property could be sold in execution. 
• Held: The executing court must examine the applicable statutory provisions, the patta, the amendments and the effect of G.O.Ms.No.306 before deciding saleability. 

Re: Issue (iv): Fresh consideration and reasoned finding

• The executing court relied on the assigned status of the property and the registration certificate when dismissing execution.
• The High Court found that the legal effect of the patta, statutory restrictions and Government Order required further examination.
• Before proceeding with a sale under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC, the executing court had to record a reasoned finding on whether the sale was legally permissible. (Paras 33–40)
• Held: The dismissal order was set aside and the execution petition restored for fresh, independent consideration. (Para 42)
• Notable Observations: No separate obiter quotation is necessary for this summary.

DECISION & DIRECTIONS

• The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition.
• The order dated 29 June 2017 dismissing E.P.No.7 of 2017 in O.S.No.179 of 2008 was set aside.
• The execution petition was restored to the executing court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
• The executing court must examine the assignment patta, Condition No.9, applicable amendments to the Assigned Lands Act, Section 3(4), and G.O.Ms.No.306 dated 25 May 2026.
• Before ordering or proceeding with a sale under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC, the executing court must record a reasoned finding on whether the proposed sale is legally permissible.
• The executing court must proceed independently and is not bound to follow the High Court's observations as findings on the ultimate merits.

             - Costs: No order as to costs.

             - Separate opinions: None. 

LEGAL PROVISIONS DISCUSSED

Provision Relevance

• Constitution of India, Article 227 Basis of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 47 Questions concerning execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree.
• CPC, Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 Sale of property in execution and the procedure for conducting such sale.
• Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, Section 2(1) Relevant definition and assignment-period provisions as amended.
• Assigned Lands Act, Section 3(1), (2), (2A), (3) and (4) Restrictions on transfers, void transactions and application to execution proceedings.
• Registration Act, 1908, Section 22-A Prohibited-properties list and registration restrictions.
• Assignment patta, Condition No.9 Ten-year restriction on transfer, lease or mortgage, subject to its terms.
• G.O.Ms.No.306, Revenue (Lands-I) Department, dated 25 May 2026 Conditional permission to register documents concerning qualifying assigned house sites with constructed houses.

PRECEDENTS CITED

• Venkataramanappa and others v. T.M. Chalapathi, C.R.P.No.4668 of 2004, 2007 (6) ALD 81 - Relied on / discussed regarding saleable interest after expiry of a ten-year restriction under the assignment patta. (Paras 9, 26)
• Vemula Ankamma Rao v. Nomula Prasada Rao, C.R.P.No.4321 of 2011, decided on 29 January 2016- Distinguished by the executing court on the facts, as recorded in the High Court's account of the earlier proceedings. (Para 5)