Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by respondents 1, 3 and 4 in W.P. No. 38480 of 2017 aggrieved by the interim orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPMP. No.47767 of 2017 in W.P. No.38480 of 2017 dated 15.11.2017, and in WPMP No.47768 of 2017 in W.P. No. 38480 of 2017 dated 15.11.2017.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein had filed the said Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to declare the proceedings of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam dated 23.08.2017, including Sy. No.187/4 for an extent of Ac.4.35 cts of Desapatrunipalem village in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(i)(a) of the Registration Act, as wholly arbitrary and opposed to the provisions of the Registration Act and the rules made thereunder. A consequential direction was sought to the Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem, Visakhapatnam to register the document presented by the petitioner for registration. By way of interim relief, respondents 1 and 2 herein sought an order (1) in W.P.M.P. No. 47768 of 2017 to suspend the endorsement dated 23.08.2017 of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam; and (2) in W.P.M.P.No.47767 of 2017 to direct the Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem to register the documents, presented by the petitioner for registration, in respect of the property purchased under the registered sale deed No. 8629 of 2005.

3. In his order in WPMP No. 47768 of 2017 in W.P. No. 38480 of 2017, the Learned Single Judge observed that, prima facie, the order of the District Collector dated 23.08.2017, refusing to delete the subject lands from the notification issued under Section 22-A(i)(a) of the Registration Act, on the ground that they are assigned lands, could not be sustained because the said order did not mention when the alleged assignment was made, and whether there was a clause prohibiting alienation in the assignment patta granted to the assignees; the condition, prohibiting alienation, was introduced for the first time by G.O.Ms. No.1142 dated 18.06.1954; unless the assignment is shown to have taken place after the said date, on which point the order of the District Collector was deliberately silent, the District Collector could not treat the subject land as Government land, and include it in the notification issued under Section 22-A(i)(a) of the Act; and the second respondent did not also advert to the proceedings dated 13.07.2004 and 25.06.2004, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paravada stating that the said lands are private patta lands, and not assigned or government lands, though the said proceedings were relied upon by the petitioners in their application made to the District Collector. The Learned Single Judge granted interim suspension of the endorsement of the District Collector dated 23.08.2017 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

4. By his order, in WPMP No.47767 of 2017 in W.P. No.38480 of 2017 dated 15.11.2017, the Learned Single Judge directed the Sub-Registrar, Lankelapalem, Visakhapatnam to receive the documents presented by the respondents-writ petitioners for registration, and consider the same strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908, without reference to the proceedings dated 23.08.2017 of the District Collector, Visakhapantam, in view of the order dated 12.05.2016, within two months from the date of presentation of the document by the petitioners. The Learned Single Judge observed that any such registration would be subject to final orders in the Writ Petition, and in the case pending before the Supreme Court. While these two appeals have been preferred against the interlocutory orders passed in WPMP No.47768 of 2017 and WPMP No.47767 of 2017 respectively, the main Writ Petition i.e., W.P. No.38480 of 2017 is still pending adjudication before the Learned Single Judge.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) would submit that the order of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam