THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.22111 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled questioning the action of the 5th respondent in refusing to entertain the sale deeds for registration of the lands in an extent of Ac.2-10 cents in Sy.No.742, Ac.0-87 cents in Sy.No.744, Ac.0-68 cents in Sy.No.745 and Ac.2-99 cents in Sy.No.746 of Kolumulapalli village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner an extent Ac.2-10 cents in Sy.No.742, Ac.0-87 cents in Sy.No.744, Ac.0-68 cents in Sy.No.745 and Ac.2-99 cents in Sy.No.746 of Kolumulapalli village, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Y.S.R. District was assigned to one Smt.Nangi Obulamma who mortgaged the subject lands to the 4th respondent for obtaining agricultural loan. Since she did not repay the loan, the 4th respondent initiated execution proceedings under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act in E.P.No.146/2005-06. The afore-said lands were sold by public auction for recovery of the loan amount, and the sale was conﬁrmed in favour of the petitioners’ mother late Malleswaramma. The 4th respondent issued sale certiﬁcate in favour of the petitioners’ mother in Form No.10 dated 5.8.2005. The petitioners’ mother died on 6.11.2006 leaving behind the petitioners herein as her legal heirs. All the four petitioners sought to sell the land to third parties and presented the documents for registration. As the 5th respondent refused to receive the said documents they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In his counter aﬃdavit the Sub-Registrar would state that these lands are shown as assigned lands in the list forwarded by to him by the Tahsildar and, as Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the provisions of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 prohibit registration of assigned lands, the said documents were not registered. Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M.Balaji, Learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent – Bank, on instructions, would state that, while the subject lands were undoubtedly assigned lands, the said lands were mortgaged with the 4th respondent – Bank; and, for failure on the part of the assignee to repay the loan, the said land was put to auction and the petitioners’ mother was the auction purchaser. A Division Bench of this Court in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti v. K. Guruvaiah [1] held that, since the original assignee had mortgaged the assigned lands in favour of the bank, as the bank was a Society registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, interest in the property stands transferred by the mortgagor to the mortgagee; and for failure to repay the loan amount, the Bank was entitled to alienate the land; the mortgage in favour of the bank was not alienation; and there was no restriction on the Bank to put the mortgaged property to auction for recovery of the loan amount. In the present case also, consequent to the subject land being mortgaged with the 4th respondent by the assignee, and for failure of the assignee to repay the loan, the Bank had put the mortgaged property to auction; the petitioners’ mother had purchased the said property in the auction; and she is, therefore, entitled to alienate the property purchased by her. The 5th respondent was, therefore, obligated to consider the petitioners’ request for registration in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in K. Guruvaiah[2]. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 5th respondent to receive the documents in question; consider the petitioners’ request for registration in accordance with law, and in terms of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of submission of the documents for registration. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________ 24-11-2011 asp [1] 2009(2) ALD 250 [2] 2009(2) ALD 250