THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23853 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners, two in number, question the action of the respondents in not entertaining the documents presented by them for registration, and in insisting on a no objection certiﬁcate being obtained from respondents 1 to 3, as being arbitrary and illegal. The said documents relate to the sale of lands of an extent of Ac.2.31 cts and Ac.2.32 cts respectively in Sy. No.328-3 of Kodigenahalli village, Parigi Mandal, Ananthapur District. The petitioners would contend that the lands purchased by them, vide registered sale deeds 1844/82 and 1843/82 respectively, were from the original assignee Sri M. Narasimhudu who was assigned the said land vide proceedings in D.A. Dis. No.585/37 dated 02.06.1928; there was no condition of non-alienation in the assignment granted in the year 1928; the assignee was therefore not prohibited from alienating the property in favour of the petitioners herein; and, since such alienation is valid, the Sub-Registrar could not have refused to register the documents since the petitioners have valid title over the property in question. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar wherein the fact that these lands were assigned in favour of one M. Narasimhudu vide proceedings dated 02.06.1928 is admitted. It is also stated that, prior to 1954, there was no condition/restriction for alienation in respect of assigned government lands; and there was no prohibition from registration of the said property under Section 22-A of the Registration Act or under the A.P. Assigned lands prohibition of Transfer Act, 1971; since the land is being treated as private zeroithi land, as per the entries in the revenue records, there is no necessity for issuance of a no objection certiﬁcate; there is no condition of non-alienation in the assignment made in the year 1928, as the said condition was imposed for the ﬁrst time from 1954 onwards; and the Sub- Registrar ought to have received the documents and considered the petitioner’s request for registration thereof. Now that the Tahsildar has admitted that a no objection certiﬁcate is not required in these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 4 th respondent to receive and examine the documents presented by the petitioner for registration; and consider the petitioner’s request for registration, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, the Registration Act and the Rules made under both the enactments and in terms of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of submission of the documents for registration. Needless to state that, since the Tahsildar himself has stated that a no objection certiﬁcate is wholly unnecessary as the assignment was much prior to the year 1954 when, for the ﬁrst time, a condition of non-alienation was prescribed, the Sub-Registrar shall not insist on the production of a “no objection certiﬁcate” for considering the petitioner’s request for registration. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 25.11.2011 MRKR