This revision petition challenges an execution court order allowing auction sale of a house. The High Court held the petitioner lacks alienable rights over the property as it is government land and quashed the order allowing sale.
The impugned order allowing sale of the schedule property was set aside; the civil revision petition was allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27TH ) DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
Present:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.1181 of 2007
Between:
Chikka Nagaratnam
… Petitioner
And:
Mangalampalli Kamakumari
… Respondent
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
C.R.P.No.1181 of 2007
ORDER:
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.01.2007 in EP No.114 of 2005 in OS No.223 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole, wherein, the objection raised by the petitioner-JDr was ignored and the execution court directed matter to be posted for settlement of terms.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent in spite of service of notice. Perused the record.
3. The respondent herein obtained a decree against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount due. The respondent herein filed EP for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.34,696/- by sale of the house, in which the petitioner-JDr is residing. The petitioner-JDr after receiving the sale notice, filed a counter, opposing the sale on the
ground that she is not the owner of the property in which she is residing and that the hut is situated in Government poramboke land. In respect of her plea, the petitioner-JDr examined RW.1-Panchayat Secretary, who deposed that the schedule thatched house bearing D.No.7-20 situated in RS No.265/1 of Ponnamanda village and is entered in the Adangal register and that the petitioner has been residing in the said thatched hut and has been paying taxes to the Panchayat. It is also in his evidence that it is a grama kantam land. The petitioner also examined RW.2-Mandal Revenue Officer, who testified that total extent of Ac.2.80 cents in R.S.No.265/1, is classified as drain canal, bodi, footpath and metal road. Ex.X.2 is the copy of the extract of ‘A’ register, which shows that the entire extent belongs to the Government. RW.2 also deposed that grama kantam land does not belong to the Government and it will be in the custody of persons who are in occupation of the land. An extent of Ac.0.04 cents of land in RS No.265/2 is stated to be grama kantam land.
4. The evidence of RWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.X.1 and X.2 would go to show that the said extent of land is not a private land, belonging to the petitioner-JDr, but is government land, classified as drain canal, bodi, footpath and metal road etc. It can therefore be said that the petitioner-JDr has been residing in the thatched house raised on the government land by way of encroachment, of course since long time, but the said property is not private property of the petitioner-JDr. The petitioner therefore has no alienable rights over the said property. Simply because she has been residing in the thatched house raised by her by encroaching upon the government land, the same cannot be treated as private property of the petitioner-JDr so as to bring to sale by way of auction.
5. In the circumstances, it is held that the objection raised by the petitioner-JDr against the proposed sale is well-founded and therefore, the schedule property is not liable for sale in execution of the decree.
The impugned order ignoring the objection raised by the petitioner-JDr is therefore, held to be unsustainable and is accordingly set aside.
6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as
to costs.
____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
Date: 27.01.2011 bss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a decree-holder can effect sale of a house situated on government land where the petitioner is merely residing by way of encroachment without ownership rights.
Whether the objection by an encroaching petitioner against the sale of property she only occupies is well founded.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Chikka Nagaratnam
Mangalampalli Kamakumari
G.V.Seethapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
