1 APHC010114372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 889/2025 Between: 1.SRI AGILIKONDA NALLAPPA, S/O A. SIDDAIAH, DRIVER CRIME VEHICLE (AUTO), R/O BUKKACHERLA VILLAGE, RAPTHADU MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.SRI JAVAJI VENKATA PRASAD, S/O J. GOVINDU, R/O VIDYAMPETA VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 2.SRI JAVADI RANJITH KUMAR, S/O J. VENKATA PRASAD, R/O VIDYAMPETA VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3.SRI JAVAJI PRADEEP ROYAL, , S/O J. VENKATA PRASAD, R/O VIDYAMPETA VILLAGE, BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4.SRI BRIJESHKUMAR, S/O SIVA PRASAD, DRIVER OF THE CRIME VEHICLE II (CONTAINER), BIBIPUR, ALLAHABAD, UGRASENPUR, UTTAR PRADESH STATE. 5.SRI P SIVASANKAR, S/O PALANI SWAMY, R/O D. NO. 73, MUHAMATHIYAR STREET, NEAR SARAWATHI RICE MILL, PERUNDURAL TOWN, TAMILNADU STATE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K SRINIVAS 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri M. Ram Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing online for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. It transpires from record that Respondent No.5 was served with the Notice on 23.06.2025 despite which, he has not evinced any interest in entering appearance either in-person or through a Counsel. Accordingly, Respondent No.5 is set ex parte. 3. In the pending Motor Vehicle Original Petition No.90/2024, the claimants have filed I.A.No.101/2025 seeking attachment of the property of Respondent No.1 therein. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapuram, after conducting an enquiry, was pleased to allow I.A.No.101/2025 vide Order dated 28.01.2025, thereby attaching the schedule property belonging to the Respondent No.1 therein. This Order dated 28.01.2025 is now under challenge in the present C.R.P. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the schedule property is an assigned property which the Petitioner has inherited from his late father who was the original assignee. He would contend that the assigned land cannot be attached by a Civil Court. 5. Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, would stoutly oppose this proposition and submit that when the assigned land can be mortgaged by the assignee for availing loan from a financial institution, and such assigned land can be brought for sale by way of auction by the financial institution in the event of default, such attachment in a Court proceeding is also of a similar nature. Therefore, 3 learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the present C.R.P is devoid of any merit. 6. It is a settled law that an assignee has the right to mortgage the property for availing loan and that in the event of default, the financial institution can bring the assigned land for sale by way of auction. The schedule land owned by Respondent No.1 in M.V.O.PNo.90/2024 is a land inherited from his late father who was the original assignee. There is no impediment in law to attach such property for securing the interest of the claimants in the motor accident claim, and such property would be brought for auction only in the event that the Judgment Debtor fails to honor the final decree. 7. This apart, The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 does not indicate anywhere that assigned land cannot be attached by a Civil Court even if the assignee is facing Civil Proceeding that may eventually lead to such assignee being declared as Judgment Debtor. This Court is also of the view that an Order of attachment by a Civil Court cannot be equated to the definition of alienation as is contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. This view of the Court is fortified by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittor District and another Vs. K. Guravaiah and another; 2008 SCC OnLine AP 743; (2009) 2 ALD 250. The relevant portion of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench is usefully extracted hereunder: “14. One has also to see whether the mortgage created in favour of the bank by the original assignee of the land was just, proper and legal. The assignee of the land can raise money by mortgaging the land so as to develop the land or to do some other better financial activity. At the same time, to see that unscrupulous elements do not lend money to the poor assignees so as to have the assigned land transferred in their favour, the mortgage executed in favour of the authorities enumerated in the explanation was not to be treated as ‘alienation’. When mortgage in favour of a co- 4 operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is not treated as alienation, in our opinion, mortgage executed in favour of the bank by the original assignee would be absolutely just and legal.” 15. xxxx 16. xxxx 17.xxxx 18. xxxx 19. Let us consider the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act in the light of the facts of the present case. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, it was open to the original assignees of the land to mortgage the land to the bank by virtue of the definition of Section 2(1). If the mortgage in favour of the bank was not alienation, there was no restriction with regard to mortgaging the assigned land in favour of the bank. Thus, the mortgage was valid. As the mortgage money was not repaid to the bank, the bank sold the land after following due process of law and thereby the petitioner became a lawful owner of the land in question. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section 5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in assigned land. In the instant case, the transaction in pursuance of which the land had been purchased by the petitioner was valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act. In such a case, in our opinion, if the concerned party had approached the District Collector for obtaining prior permission, the District Collector was bound to accord necessary permission in favour of the person seeking such permission. At the most, the authorities could have approached the District Collector for seeking permission under Section 5 and in that event, the District Collector was bound to give permission in view of the fact that the bank, admittedly a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, could have become a mortgagee in respect of the assigned land. 8. In this view of the matter, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made bySri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is 5 devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:16.09.2025 Vns/Mnr