THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22304 OF 2009 Dated: 24.02.2010 Between: V. Saraswathi and another. … Petitioners And 1. The Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi, W.G. District, And others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22304 OF 2009 ORDER : The 1st petitioner herein purchased the land in R.S.No.325/2 admeasuring Ac.4.21 guntas and in R.S.No.325/4 admeasuring Ac.1.00 situated in Teegalavancha Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, W.G. District, in the public auctions that were conducted by the 3rd respondent on 20.05.2003 and 29.06.2004. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner purchased Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.325/3 and Ac.2.00 situated in R.S.No.325/5 and another Ac.3.60 cents in R.S.No.325/1 in the auctions conducted by the 3rd respondent. It is not in dispute that the said lands were originally assigned in favour of one Sundaranudi Gopal and Kona Prabhakara Rao who obtained loan from Errampalli Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society respectively by mortgaging the assigned lands. Since they committed default in payment of the loan amount, having initiated proceedings under the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 , the said lands were brought to sale and in the public auction conducted by the 3rd respondent the petitioners herein had purchased the same. The sale was confirmed on 14.1.2004 and 2.8.2004 and sale certificates were also issued on 8.5.2004 and 28.12.2004 respectively by the 3rd respondent and the petitioners were put in possession. Thereafter, having intended to sell the said lands, the petitioners executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 23.09.2009 in favour of Manne Venkata Rayudu and Manne Veera Rani. However, when the said sale deed was presented before the 1st respondent – Sub-Registrar, Chintalapudi for registration, the 1st respondent refused to register the document on the ground that the lands in question were included in the list of assigned lands and the said fact was informed to the petitioners by letter dated 23.09.2009. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the leaned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. At the outset, it is to be noticed that an identical question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in SUB-REGISTRAR, SRIKALAHASTI v. K. GURAVAIAH[1] and after considering all the relevant provisions under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, it was held as under : “Thus, when the property is mortgaged, interest in the property is transferred by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. If the mortgage money is not repaid, the consequences provided in the Transfer of Property Act would naturally follow. We need not go in detail about the same because it is not in dispute that the mortgage money was not paid by the original assignee of the assigned lands to the bank and, therefore, the bank had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The bank ultimately obtained recovery certificate under the provisions of Section 71 of the afore-stated Act and after following legal procedure, the lands in question were put to auction and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the highest bidder and ultimately, the assigned lands were sold to him. The sale executed in favour of the petitioner was confirmed and a sale-deed had been executed. If the property in the assigned land had been transferred to the petitioner, the revenue record must be completed accordingly by showing the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question.” In the light of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench that the sale of the mortgaged assigned lands is not covered by the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the objection raised by the 1st respondent that the document cannot be received for registration merely on the ground that the lands in question were assigned lands is unsustainable. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the petitioners herein are also similarly situated. In the circumstances, the writ petitioners, who are the auction purchasers of the assigned land, being the lawful owners, are entitled to re-sell the same to a third party. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 23.09.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to represent the Sale Deed dated 23.09.2009 before the 1st respondent for registration. On such representation, the 1st respondent shall receive and process the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.02.2010 Note:- CC in one week. (B/O) gbs [1] 2009 (3) ALT 85 (D.B.)