IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9026 of 2009 Between: T.Subbarayulu S/o.T.Sriramulu R/o.Chinna Anjimedu village yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District 2 The Tahsildar, yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District 3 The Special Cadre Deputy Registrar, officer on Special Duty, The Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd Chittoor .....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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in refusing to register sale deed in respect of the lands an extent ofAc.2.07 cents of dry land i.e. an extent of Ac.0.61 cents comprised in Sy.No.39-4 and Ac.1.46 cents in SY.No.39.2 of Chinna Anjimedu village,Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District on the basis of the instrucitons issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The Special Cadre Deputy Registrar of the Chittoor District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Chittoor – third respondent herein, conducted auction to sell the lands admeasuring Acs.0.61 cents and Ac.1.46 cents in Survey Nos.39-4 and 39-2 respectively, of Chinna Anjimedu Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. The said lands were mortgaged to the bank for repayment of a loan. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder and the sale was confirmed in his favour. When a sale deed was presented for registration before the first respondent, he refused to register the same on the ground that the lands were assigned and the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the POT Act’, applies. The petitioner challenges the action of the first respondent in refusing to register the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the lands referred to above were assigned to a landless poor. Had the assignee retained the lands, prohibition under the relevant enactments would certainly have operated against the transfer. The lands were mortgaged to the bank. Section 6 of the POT Act exempts such transactions from the purview of that Act. Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No.14750 of 2007. Through an order, dated 26.07.2007, it was held that the prohibition under the relevant enactment does not operate vis-à-vis such transactions. The order in the said writ petition was upheld in Writ Appeal No.950 of 2007. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the first respondent is directed to process the documents presented in respect of the lands referred to above, without applying the prohibition either under Section 22-A of the Act or under Section 5 of the POT Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 29th APRIL, 2009. kvni