THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13719 of 2009 Dated:25.01.2010 Between: Siripereddy Ramasubba Reddy and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13719 of 2009 ORDER: The father of the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Acs.05.75 cents of land in Survey No.158 of Pedda Rangapuram Village, Pulivendula Mandal, Kadapa District, through separate sale deeds, dated 10.05.1988 and 05.09.1988. He presented the sale deeds in respect of said land before the Sub-Registrar, the 3rd respondent, on 23.06.2009, for registration. The 3rd respondent returned the documents through endorsement, dated 23.06.2009, stating that the land in question was mentioned in the list of Assigned Waste (AW) forwarded by Tahsildar, Pulivendula Mandal, the 2nd respondent. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The 2nd respondent filed a counter - affidavit. According to him, the land in Survey No.158 is Government land, as per Re-settlement and Re-survey Register, and that it has been assigned to various individuals. He contends that the land is not held as patta by any one, including his father of the 1st petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) imposes restriction on the registration of documents for transfer of assigned lands. In addition to that, Section 22-A of the Act empowers the 3rd respondent to refuse to register the documents in respect of the lands owned by State or Central Governments or those belonging to Endowments Department and Wakf Boards etc. In case of Government lands, the registering authority has to depend upon the information furnished by the authorities of the Revenue Department. In the instant case, It is stated that the father of the 1st petitioner purchased the land in the year 1988, and at no point of time, it was held by the Government. The only ground, on which the 3rd respondent refused to register the documents, is that it is figured in the list furnished by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner filed a copy of the list of AW lands furnished by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent. It contains six columns. The last column is in relation to the date of assignment. The land in Survey No.158 of Pedda Rangapuram Village was mentioned at Sl.No.33. While in respect of all other lands, the dates of assignment and the number of proceedings are mentioned. In respect of the land in Survey No.158, it is mentioned as “Adangal’. This only shows that the 2nd respondent himself was not sure about the fact that whether the land was assigned at all and if so, the date thereof. When valuable rights of the citizens are involved, the incomplete information furnished by the 2nd respondent cannot constitute the basis to refuse registration. Further, if the land was assigned and it has been alienated over a period of time, proceedings ought to have been initiated under the Act, duly issuing notice to the concerned parties. These facts disclose that the 2nd respondent was not clear as to the nature of the land. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the 3rd respondent is directed to process the documents presented by the petitioners without taking into account, the information furnished by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:25.01.2010 KH