IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3554 of 2009 Between: 1 A. Krishna Reddy S./o. Basvireddy R/o. Sadasivunipalem Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. 2 A. Sambasiva Reddy S/o. A. Krishna Reddy R/o. Sadasivunipalem Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. 3 A. Diwakar Reddy S/o. A. Krishna Reddy R/o. Sadasivunipalem Village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Commissioner and Inspector General Stamps and Registration, Golkonda X Roads Hyderabad. 2 The Sub Registrar, Sathupally, Khammam 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 pass order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent NO.2 in not entertaining sale deed dt. 9-2-2009 vide document P.No. 5/09 as illegal, arbitrary and much against the principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CH.SHANMUKHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner presented a sale deed dated 9.02.2009 for registration before the second respondent. Through an endorsement made on the same date, the second respondent refused to register the said document. It was mentioned that the subject matter of the document is assigned land and in view of the prohibition contained in A.P. Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977, the transfer is prohibited. The petitioner contends that the land was assigned in the year 1955 and the prohibition against the transfer of assigned lands was imposed for the first time through G.O.Ms.No.1406 dated 25.07.1958. Reliance is placed on the order, dated 16.07.2008 passed in W.P.No.15078 of 2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The only ground on which the second respondent refused to register the document is that the property covered by it is an assigned land. The petitioner states that the land was assigned in the year 1955. Copies of Pahanis for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 issued in respect of the said land discloses that the petitioner is in possession of the same. Since it is not disputed that the prohibition against the transfer of assigned lands was imposed for the first time through G.O.Ms.No.1406, dated 25.07.1958, this Court is of the view that the transfer of lands assigned earlier thereto is not prohibited. Hence the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement is set aside. The second respondent is directed to process the document without reference to any prohibition under Act 9 of 1977. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 24th February, 2009 Js.