THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6758 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner purchased two extents of land namely Acs.2.30 cents and Ac.1.28 cents in Survey No.1123/1A and 1123/1B respectively of Basinikonda Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District in an auction conducted by the Special Category Deputy Registrar-cum- Officer on Special Duty, Chittoor District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Chittoor, the third respondent herein. The petitioner intended to sell the land. However, the Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, the first respondent herein, is said to have refused to process the documents or to register the sale transactions on the ground that the land was assigned by the Government to a beneficiary. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the first respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is, no doubt, true that the land referred to above was assigned to Sri V.K.Rama Krishnan, who is none other than the father of the petitioner. The land was mortgaged to the Chittoor District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, as a security for repayment of a loan. Since the loan was not repaid, the property was put to auction by the third respondent and the petitioner purchased the same. The question as to whether an assigned land would retain the same character even after it was mortgaged in favour of a registered society or a nationalized bank and sold in the course of foreclosure of mortgage, was examined by this Court in W.P.No.14743 of 2007 and batch. In its judgment, dated 26.07.2007, this Court examined the purport of different provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’), and held that once a land is mortgaged in favour of a society, its character undergoes a change and the prohibition contained under Section 3 of the Act ceases to operate vis-à-vis the land. The said judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.950 of 2007. The facts of the present case are identical. The mere fact that the petitioner is the son of the original assignee, hardly makes any difference. The reason is that if not the petitioner, somebody else would have purchased the land in the auction conducted by the third respondent. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to process the documents presented by the petitioner with reference to the land referred to above without applying the prohibition contained under the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.04.2009 kdl