DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the decree holders - plaintiffs in O. S. No. 45 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Wanaparthy, questioning the order dated 19. 3. 2001 in E. A. No. 15 of 2000 in E. P. No. 12 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

( 2 ) NECESSARY facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:the revision petitioners were having land in Sy. No. 115. It was acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing a well in a tank named as Gundla Cheruvu. In lieu of the acquisition of the land belonging to the revision petitioners in Sy. No. 115, the Government assigned some other land to them in Sy. Nos. 10-A and 10-B. Later, on the ground that the defendants in the suit were obstructing the enjoyment of assigned land by the plaintiffs, they filed a suit in O. S. No. 45 of 1980 seeking declaration of their title and for perpetual injunction against the defendants. The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, and the Tahsildar, Wanaparthy are the defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit. The suit was contested by all the defendants. One of the contentions taken by the defendants 1 and 2 is that in lieu of the acquisition of the land belonging to the plaintiffs, Ac. 1-09 guntas in Sy. No. 10-B and Ac. 1-00 of land in Sy. No. 11/b was assigned to the plaintiffs. The defendants did not question the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to declare the title and grant relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. After contest, the Civil Court held that the land in Sy. Nos. 10-A and 10-B were assigned by the Government to the plaintiffs. Accordingly the Civil Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by judgment and decree dated 12. 8. 1985. No appeal was preferred by any of the defendants against the said judgment and decree. The said judgment had already become final and conclusive.

( 3 ) AT that stage, alleging that the defendants are disobeying the decree for perpetual injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the decree holders filed execution petition in E. P. No. 12 of 1996 seeking the punishment of the judgment debtors for violating the decree for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, nearly after a lapse of three years, judgment debtor No. 3 filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 151 C. P. C. , in E. A. No. 15 of 2000 requesting the Executing Court to treat the decree dated 12. 8. 1995 in O. S. No. 45 of 1980 as null and void, as such it is not binding and E. P. , may be dismissed. According to the averments in the said petition the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit in O. S. No. 45 of 1980 and dispose it of is barred by the provisions in Sections 4 (2) and 8 (1) of A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The said petition was opposed by the decree holders. The Executing Court allowed the said application by order dated 19. 3. 2001. Aggrieved by that order, the decree holders preferred the present revision petition.

( 4 ) IN the impugned order the Executing Court merely stated relying upon two decisions of the Supreme Court that the Executing Court is also entitled to declare that a particular decree passed by a Civil Court is null and void. After giving such a finding, the Executing Court did not discuss under what provisions of law the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. The Executing Court did not refer to any of the provisions in any enactment to allow the said petition on the ground that the decree and judgment passed by the Civil Court are null and void.

( 5 ) IT is now necessary to refer to the provisions contained in Sections 4 (1) and 8 of the said Act. Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibition of transfer of assigned lands. Section 4 of the Act lays down that if the competent officer is satisfied that the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act have been contravened in respect of any assigned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document