Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the appellants and Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The sum and substance of this writ appeal, on the face of it, is covered by the judgment in Sub-Regisrar, Sri Kalahasti v. K. Guravaiah.

3. The property involved in this litigation was put to statutory auction in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964; hereinafter referred to as Rules. In terms of Rule 52 of the Rules, sale certificate was issued in favour of Ranemma. She alienated that parcel thereafter to the writ petitioner. The jurisdictional officer refused to issue pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the transferee of Ranemma. He, therefore, moved the learned Single Judge for directions. The writ petition was ordered in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence, this writ appeal by the official respondents in the writ petition.

4. The learned Government Pleader very persuasively submitted that the decision in Sub-Registrar, Sri Kalahasti requires re-consideration. He elaborated by saying that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; hereinafter referred to as T.P. Act; do not regulate the transfer of lands in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977; hereinafter referred to as Act, 1977; and therefore the inhibition contained in that Act should be treated as one which disentitles a mortgaged property being brought to sale under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules where the property, which is mortgaged, was obtained by the mortgagor in terms of transfer by the State which was regulated by Act, 1977. He tried to draw distinction between the applicability of T.P. Act and the provisions of Act, 1977, in an attempt to plead that the ratio laid by the Division Bench in Sub-Registrar, Sri Kalahasti requires to be revisited.

5. The decision in Sub-Registrar, Sri Kalahasti was rendered holding that the provisions of Act, 1977, would not apply for sale of assigned lands which are mortgaged to Bank. The auction purchaser in that case was held to be lawful owner and, therefore, entitled to sell the property obtained in auction, to a third party.

6. The Act, 1977, creates an embargo against alienation of the assigned lands. However, the assigned land will be heritable, once it is in the hands of the assignee. The prohibition against alienation imposed on the assignee is built with the exclusion that such restriction as to alienation would not apply to creation of mortgages in favour of those entities, which are enumerated in the explanation to Section 2 (1) of Act, 1977. The purpose of such exclusion and the legislative wisdom in making such exclusion are explicit on a reading of the provisions of Act, 1977, in the backdrop of the objects sought to be achieved by that piece of legislation. As can be seen from the definition of the term assigned land under Section 2 (1) of Act, 1977, the assigned lands to which those rules apply are those lands which are assigned to landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force. The condition of non- alienation and other matters are brought into the basket of the description of the term assigned land with the explanation that mortgages in favour of the different institutions enumerated in that sub-section shall not be regarded as alienation. The purpose is to enable the landless poor persons who have assigned lands to generate funds, fundamentally for their agricultural operations and also for other purposes, by putting that lands to mortgages with institutions which are enumerated under Section 2 (1) of Act, 1977.

7. Once mortgages are created by the assignees of Government lands and when those mortgages stand with the support of the exclusionary provision in the definition of assigned land in Act, 1977, it cannot be con