THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23073 of 2007 ORDER: One Smt. Y.Balakrishnaveni, Smt. Y.Sridevi and Sri R.Siva Prasad were assigned lands in Survey Nos.6/3, 6/4 and 14/8 of Papayya Santhapalem Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, admeasuring Acs.4.82 cents, Acs.4.00 cents and Acs.4.85 cents respectively. All of them mortgaged their properties in favour of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam as security for repayment of loans. Since they committed default, the mortgaged properties were brought to sale. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder in the auctions conducted in 2001. On payment of consideration, three separate sale deeds were executed on 22.02.2001 in favour of the petitioner by the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent – the Sub-Registrar, Sabbavaram, is not registering the said documents on the ground that the lands covered by them are assigned and that the prohibition contained under Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) applies. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the second respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The Act not only prohibits the transfer of assigned lands, but also directs that the registering authority shall not register the documents witnessing transfer of the assigned lands. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the prohibition contained under Section 5 of the Act applies to the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter was dealt with in detail by this Court in N.RAJA REDDY AND OTHERS v. SUB-REGISTRAR, SRIKALAHASTHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AND OTHERS[1] wherein the purport of various provisions of the Act was discussed and it was held that the prohibition under Section 5 of the Act does not apply where the lands are mortgaged to a nationalized bank or statutory bank and sold by the financial agencies. This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.950 of 2007. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case referred to above. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the second respondent is directed to process the documents presented by the petitioner without reference to Section 5 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 27th JANUARY, 2010. kvni [1] 2007(5) ALD 845