RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP MP No. 47019 of 2017 in WP No. 37854 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017. The 1st respondent herein filed the writ petition questioning G.O. Ms. No. 215 dated 13.5.2016 notifying the subject lands under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner purchased the subject lands pursuant to a sale conducted by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chittoor, and on his issuing a Sale Certificate in favour of the petitioner, pursuant to the orders passed in EP No. 123/10-11 and EP No. 115/10-11 on 24.10.2011.

3. The contention urged, before the learned Single Judge, by Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, was that, once the assigned lands are mortgaged in favour of a Co-operative Bank, and if the property is put to auction thereafter for failure of the assignee to repay the debt, the lands sold in the auction lose the character of assigned land; and the auction purchaser would have unfettered right and title over the said lands. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sub-Registrar, Sri Kalahasti v. K. Guravaiah, WA No. 950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2008 reported in 2009 (2) ALD 250 (DB) : 2009 (3) ALT 85 (DB).

4. The learned Single Judge not only followed the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, but also noted that, against the order passed by a Full Bench in WA No. 343 of 2015, the Supreme Court had granted interim stay in SLP(C)CC No. 8917 of 2016 dated 12.5.2016.

5. Sri A. Giridhar Rao, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that the later portion of the order of the learned Single Judge was passed not at his request, and it was wholly unnecessary for the learned Single Judge to do so, when he was satisfied that the subject-matter of the writ petition was covered by a Division Bench judgment in WA No. 950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2008; the 1st respondent-writ petitioner has filed a review petition, in WPMP No. 50567 of 2017, seeking deletion of the second limb of the order; the review petition is listed on the board of the learned Single Judge today; and it would suffice if this Court were to examine only the first limb of the order of the learned Single Judge whereby interim relief was granted on the basis of the Division Bench judgment in WA No. 950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2008.

6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that assessment of lands is in the nature of a grant under the Government Grants Act, 1895; the legislative intent, in enacting the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter called "the 1977 Act"), is to ensure that assigned lands are not alienated; while these lands are heritable, there is a prohibition against alienation in order to protect the interests of the poor and the marginalised, in whose favour these lands are assigned, to enable them to earn their livelihood; the law laid down by the Division Bench in K. Guravaiah's case (supra), needs reconsideration; the observations made therein that the land loses the character of assigned land, once it is sold in a public auction, falls foul of the provisions of the 1977 Act; all that the Government has done is to permit the assignee to mortgage the property; the bank has not been permitted to alienate the land or put it to sale for recovery of the amounts due; if the law declared by the Division Bench were to continue to apply, it would defeat the very object and purport of the 1977 Act; and it would result in Government property being alienated through this devious process.

7. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the 1977 Act only exempts mortgage of assigned land in favour of a Co-operative Society, and does not exempt its sale in an auction by the Co-operative Society; and if the law lai