THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITON No.3472 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Ac.2.83 cents in Sy.Nos.168-2D3 and 168-2D4 and Ac.2.10 cents in Sy.No.168-2C situated at Kakkalapalli village, Anantapur Mandal and District, having obtained the same through registered partition deed No.6360/2005 dated 16.05.2005. He intended to sell the said property to the proposed vendors. For that purpose, he approached the 4th respondent to process the documents for registration. The 4th respondent is said to have insisted that the petitioner must obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the revenue authorities. On a report called for by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, and the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar, Anantapur, informed that the land admeasuring Ac.14.98 cents in Sy.No.168-C of Kakkalapalli village of Anantapur Mandal was assigned in favour of one T.C.Anjaneyulu, a political sufferer, in the year 1950 and that as per G.O.Ms.No.1743 dated 28.08.1959, the assignee is eligible for sale, gift and alienate the land after 10 years from the date of assignment. Petitioner states that once the land was assigned in the year 1950, there is no necessity of issuing N.O.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The condition prohibiting alienation of the assigned lands was incorporated in the year 1958 and in all the assignments made earlier thereto, the said condition was not incorporated. Therefore, the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act or Sections 3 and 5 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, does not operate vis-à-vis the lands that were assigned earlier to 1958. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to entertain and process the documents that are presented by the petitioner in respect of the lands mentioned above, without insisting on submission of ‘No Objection Certification’ from respondents 1 to 3. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J 15.02.2011 v v