JUDGMENT : 1. On the fact situation it is clear that on the day when the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act 1976 came into force, the appointed day being 28.1.1976, the appellant was owning 3000 sq.yds. of urban land dis- entitling him to obtain any further in view of Section 4(4)(a) of the said Act read with Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Vacant Lands in Urban Areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act 1972. It is note worthy that the appellant had barely an agreement dated 19.7.1975 of sale in his favour in respect of a site measuring 3100 sq. yards. He had to seek a decree for specific performance for which purpose he filed a suit. During the pendency of the suit the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulation Act 1976 came into operation. The suit was decreed ex parte requiring the respondent to execute the deed of sale and on his failure to do so, the Court took upon itself the obligation to transfer the property as decreed. That in fact was done. The objection of the respondent before the Executing Court on the basis of the bar erected by the afore- quoted two provisions of the respective two States did not succeed but it did at the appeal stage before the High Court, which is now in question before us. 2. Nothing wrong could be found in the agreement of sale per se as it could in no event be construed as "alienation" for the purpose of two afore-mentioned provisions of two Statutes. The alienation was effected when the Court executed the sale as a substitute for the respondent. The bar was then attracted in that act of the Court. The existence of the decree for specific performance could in no event help matters for the bar of alienation erected against persons in-the afore provisions is equally erected against the Court acting as a person in place of another. The view taken by the High Court in these circumstances would be the only correct view in the matter and we have no cause to differ from the same. We therefore dismiss this appeal. No costs.