SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(AP) 516

S.S.M.QUADRI, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
B. Ramaiah – Appellant
Versus
Mandal Revenue Officer, puttapartbi, Ananthapur – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, there is no explicit mention or discussion about the validity or invalidity of attachment before a civil court in relation to the specific land transfer restrictions under the relevant land laws. The document primarily focuses on the scope of the prohibition of transfers of assigned lands, the exceptions provided under the law, and the interpretation of mortgage and transfer provisions within the context of the Act.

The law emphasizes that transfers of assigned lands are generally null and void, and it specifies certain exemptions, such as mortgages in favor of specified government authorities, which are protected under the law. However, it does not explicitly state that attachment of assigned land before a civil court is barred or permissible.

Therefore, based on this document, it cannot be conclusively inferred that attachment before a civil court is barred. The law appears to restrict transfers and alienations of assigned land but does not explicitly mention the status or validity of attachment proceedings.

In conclusion, the document does not provide a clear ruling or prohibition regarding attachment before a civil court, and this issue may require further legal interpretation or reference to other laws or judicial pronouncements.


JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises a question as to the meaning and scope of section 6 of the A. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. First we shall state the facts relevant to the controversy.

( 2 ) FOURTH-RESPONDENT, E. Gangamma was assigned an extent of 4 Acres in Survey No. 45/2a/1 in Nidimamidi village, by Tahsildar, Penukonda, in his proceedings dated 12-9-1973. Gangamma raised a loan of rs. 10,000/- on the security of the said land from the Agricultural development Bank, Penukonda, for agricultural purposes. On 2-1-1985 the said land was purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale-deed executed by Gangamma. According to the petitioner, the consideration stipulated for the transaction was As. 34,500/-, though the sale-deed mentions the same at rs. 25,000/- only. Be that as it may, a part of the consideration was utilized for discharging the aforesaid mortgage. The sale-deed does recite this fact. Further, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- out of the consideration received by Gangamma was utilized by her for purchasing a piece of land, half-an-acre in extent. The sale deed for the said extent was also executed on the same day, i. e. , on 2-1-1985. "

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top