THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26803 of 2011 Date:27th September, 2011 Between: J.Hanumantha Reddy S/o.J.Nallappa Reddy ..... Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad & Ors. .....Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26803 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by J.Hanumantha Reddy seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the Sub-Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur District-4th respondent in not receiving and processing the documents relating to sale of agricultural land of an extent of Ac.4.16 cents, situated in Sy.No.260-1; an extent of Ac.6.23 cents, situated in Sy.No.261; and an extent of Ac.4.04 cents, situated in Sy.No.260-2 of Utakuru Village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District, is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. One Neruganti Dalappa was an assignee of Ac.10.39 cents of agricultural land situated in Survey Nos.260-1, 261 of Utakuru Village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District, vide DA.Dis.No.74/38, dated 09.08.1928. He was also an assignee of an extent of Ac.4.04 cents, situated in Sy.No.260-2 of Utakuru Village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District, vide DA.Dis.No.6/51, dated 27.04.1942. He was in possession of the lands assigned to him during his life time. After his death, his family members continued to be in possession of the assigned lands. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the legal heirs of the assignee viz., Neruganti Aswarthamma, Nagaratnamma, N.Sivashankarappa, N.Sriramappa, N.Ramakrishna and N.Ramagopal. He approached the Sub-Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur District-4th respondent along with the vendors to receive the sale deeds to complete the transactions. The 4th respondent refused to receive the documents stating that the lands in question are assigned lands. According to the petitioner, the assignment of lands in favour of Neruganti Dalappa was in the year 1928 and 1942 that is much prior to G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 14.08.1954 whereunder prohibition of sale of assigned lands came to be included. Therefore, the action of the 4th respondent in not receiving and processing the sale documents is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 23.09.2011, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue takes notice on behalf of the respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue represent that the issue involved in this Writ Petition has been squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.7254 of 2009, dated 07.04.2009 (Y.Venkata Lakshmi & Ors. v. The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District & Ors.). 6. 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. Relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.7254 of 2009 reads as hereunder: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Even from a perusal of the proceedings dated 17.01.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent, it is clear that the names of various persons are mentioned as pattedars for the lands since 1933. Further assuming that it was assigned much earlier thereto, there does not exist any condition prohibiting transfer. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to entertain and process the documents that are presented by the petitioners in respect of the lands mentioned above, without insisting on submission of ‘No Objection Certification’ from Respondents 1 to 3. No costs.” 7. Admittedly, the assignments of the lands in favour of Neruganti Dalappa were in the years 1928 and 1942. Therefore, the cited decision squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. 8. Accordingly, 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 for submission of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the respondents 1 to 3. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:27th September, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.26803 of 2011 Date:27th September, 2011