HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 22510 OF 2010 Dated 9th September, 2010 Between: Sri N. Narasimha Rddy ………Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa and four others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvori Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 & 5 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent 4 : Sri P. Srinivas The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.5 in refusing to entertain the sale deed for registration in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 cents in Survey No. 1/1-A-2, of Mangampeta Village fields, Ontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The above mentioned land was originally assigned in favour of one J. Ramachandriah, son of Madhavachary. The assignee has mortgaged the said land in favour of respondent No.4 for obtaining loan. As the assignee failed to repay the loan, respondent No.4 has brought the land for auction vide E.P No. 433 of 2005-2006. The petitioner participated in the said auction and emerged as the highest bidder and the property was accordingly sold to the petitioner in pursuance of the sale certificate dated 24-06-2006 issued by the Deputy Registrar/Officer on Special Duty. When the petitioner sought to sell the said property to a third party and present the document for registration before respondent No.5, the latter declined to register the same on the ground that the property is an assigned property. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning this action. At the hearing, in support of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land sold in auction by the cooperative societies are exempted from the prohibition contained in the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K. Guravaiah[1] and also judgment of a learned single Judge in Kalluri Rami Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh[2]. The Division Bench in the judgment (1 supra) after referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, held as under: “Let us consider the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act in the light of the facts of the present case. In the present case, as stated hereinabove, it was open to the original assignees of the land to mortgage the land to the bank by virtue of the definition of Section 2(1). If the mortgage in favour of the bank was not alienation, there was no restriction with regard to mortgaging the assigned land in favour of the bank. Thus, the mortgage was valid. As the mortgage money was not repaid to the bank, the bank sold the land after following due process of law and thereby the petitioner became a lawful owner of the land in question. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section 5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in the assigned land. In the instant case, the transaction in pursuance of which the land had been purchased by the petitioner was valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act. In such a case, in our opinion, if the concerned party had approached the District Collector for obtaining prior permission, the District Collector was bound to accord necessary permission in favour of the person seeking such permission. At the most, the authorities could have approached the District Collector for seeking permission under Section 5 and in that event, the District Collector was bound to give permission in view of the fact that the bank, admittedly a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, could have become a mortgagee in respect of the assigned lands.” On the above premise, the Division Bench has affirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the Sub-Registrar concerned to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner therein. Similar is the judgment in Kalluri Rami Reddy’s case (2 supra). Having regard to the undisputed facts referred to above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the dicta laid down in the above two judgments. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.5 is directed to receive and register the document as and when presented by the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned land. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 9th September, 2010 ks [1] 2009 (2) ALD 250 [2] Writ Petition No. 14219 of 2010, dated 16-07-2010