IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4427 of 2009 Between: 1 R. Adinarayana, S/o. Rama Swamy, R/o. Ramalayam Veedhi, Chirala, Prakasam District. 2 R. Nagamalleswara Rao, S/o. Adinarayana, R/o. Ramalayam Veedhi, Chirala, Prakasam District. 3 R. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Adinarayana, R/o. Ramalayam Veedhi, Chirala, Prakasam District. 4 V.V. Subba Rao, S/o. V.Ch. Venkata Reddy, R/o. Ramalayam Veedhi, Chirala, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahsildar, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 The Sub Registrar, Chirala, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in notifying the land in Sy.No.541 of Kothapeta Village, as being in the list of prohibited lands for registration, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently declare that there is no prohibition for alienation of the land situated in Sy.No.541 to the extent of Ac. 1.00 in Kothapeta Village, Vetapalem Mandal in Prakasam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioners purchased an extent of Acs.1.00 of land in S.No.541 of Kothapet Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District, through registered sale deed dated 22.10.1997 from Mrs. Shaik Moulana Bibi and others. The land was originally assigned in the year 1937. Thereafter, it is changed hands. The petitioners intended to dispose of the land purchased by them, and accordingly, they approached the third respondent to register documents. It is represented that the third respondent refused to entertain the document in relation to the said land on the ground that it was assigned land. The petitioner is seeking appropriate direction in this regard. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Even assuming that the prohibition contained in Section 22-A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act operates against the assigned land, the fact remains that the assignment in the present case was made way back in the year 1937 and the condition prohibiting alienation was incorporated some time in the year 1952. Prohibition under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act would apply only where a condition is incorporated in the order of assignment prohibiting alienation. At any rate, the petitioners and their predecessors in title have been in possession of the land for more than 30 years adverse to the Government. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the third respondent to process the document presented by the petitioner without applying the prohibition against the assigned land. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 20th March, 2009 Js.