THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT APPEAL No. 297 of 2008 and W.P.No. 16839 of 2007 Dated: 25-10--2010 Between: The Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor Dist. and another ….Appellants And J.Ramachandraiah and another …Respondents. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard the learned Govt. Pleader for Revenue for the appellants and Sri Rambhupal Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent in the appeal and the writ petitioner. The respective counsel urged that in view of the judgment of the learned Division Bench dated 30-12-2008 in W.A.No. 950 of 2007, the writ petition itself requires to be allowed and the appeal herein, which is directed against an interim order of the learned single Judge dated 13-11-2007 in the writ petition requires to be dismissed. The writ petition is filed, aggrieved by the refusal of the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District in entertaining the sale deeds submitted by the petitioner for registration in respect of land in Sy.No. 39/4 of an extent of Ac.0- 60 cents and an extent of Ac.1-47 cents in Sy.No.39/2, in all Ac.2-07 of Chinna Anjimedu Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District, in view of the instructions issued by the Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal. The lands in question were purchased by the petitioner in a public auction conducted by the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Chittoor. These lands were originally assigned by the Mandal Revenue Officer in favour of one K.Bheemaiah. The original assignee obtained a loan from the Primary Agricultural Coop. Credit Society by mortgaging the said land and committed default in repayment of the loan. Thereafter proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and the lands were brought to sale and sold in public auction. The petitioner became the highest bidder in the said auction and deposited the amount. A sale certificate was also issued in his favour by the Special Category Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer on Special Duty, Chittoor District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., on 4-12-2006. The writ petitioner made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer for issuance of a pattadar pass book under the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, which is stated to be pending. He wanted to dispose of the properties for family necessities and when he approached the Sub-Registrar to ascertain the registration value of the property, he was informed by the Sub-Registrar that the Tahsildar, Yerpedu had issued instructions that there should be no registration of assigned lands. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. By the order impugned in the appeal, the learned single Judge made absolute the earlier interim direction in the writ petition whereby the Registering Authority was directed to accept the sale deeds submitted by the writ petitioner and consider the same for registration without reference to the instructions by the Tahsildar, Yerpedu. An identical question as in the writ petition fell for consideration and came to be decided in the judgment dated 30-12-2008 in W.A.No., 950 of 2007. The learned Division Bench in this judgment affirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge in writ petitions filed under similar factual and legal premises and held that in view of the provisions of Section 2 of Act 9 of 1977 whereby a mortgage in favour of any Coop. Society registered or deemed to be registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 shall not be regarded as an alienation, falling foul of the prohibition on alienation under the provisions of the said Act, the mortgage and the consequent sale on the basis of the default in repayment of the loan to an Agricultural Credit Society by the borrower falls outside the purview of the prohibitions of Act 9 of 1977. In view of the judgment in W.A.No. 950 of 2007, W.P.No. 16839 of 2007 requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. On a parity of reasons, the order under appeal is impeccable and no interference in the appeal is called for. In the aforesaid analysis, W.A.No. 297 of 2008 is dismissed and W.P.No. 16839 of 2007 is allowed as prayed for. There shall however be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 25th October, 2010 ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J GRR