ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners and possessors of the land mentioned against their names in Sy. Nos. 29/1, 29/3 and 29/4 of Madhurvada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District (for short 'the subject lands'). The said plots are situated in an approved layout covered by LP No. 20/1994 issued by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority on 3.6.1994 and the plots are covered with structures which have been assessed to tax and have been assigned door numbers by the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and tax books have also been issued. That the predecessors in title of the petitioners i.e., Mandava Dhanalakshmi was granted market value patta on 3.12.1981 vide DR No. 2/1390/B1 by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Taluk, in relation to an extent of Ac. 1.00 in Sy. No. 29/1 of Madhuravada Village and Athaluri Hanumantha Rao was granted market value patta on 3.12.1981 vide DR No. 1/1390/B1 by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam in relation to an extent of Ac. 1.00 in Sy. No. 29/3 and another extent of Ac. 0.33 cents in Sy. No. 29/4 of Madhuravada Village, was subject matter of market value patta granted on 6.7.1984 vide RC No. 869/1984/Bl, by the said authority and the market value was paid by the assignees. It is stated that since the assignments made on collection of market value, the conditions regarding non-alienation prescribed in BSO-15 are not applicable so also the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Though the lands are assigned on payment of market value, the same were included in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 on the ground that the same are assigned lands. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that when once the assignments are made on payment of market value, there is no restriction for alienation of subject land. He submits that when patta was granted, the said non alienation clause was included and later the said clause was deleted by virtue of the orders passed by the District Collector dated 29.1.1992. He submits that inspite of deletion of said non-alienation clause, the application filed by the petitioners for deletion of subject lands from the list of prohibited properties was rejected on the ground that challans regarding payment of amounts and DR file is not available, which is erroneous.

4. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 12.11.2018 of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, it is found about that the orders passed by the Joint Collector approving the deletion of patta Condition No. 1 by order dated 29.1.1992. But only on the ground of non-availability of challans regarding payment of amount, the District Collector asserts that the said proceedings were issued. It is also stated that without original DR files and original challan, it is not possible to conclude that the land in question was proved to be assigned on payment of market value. In the impugned proceedings, it is also asserted that even the land in question was proved to be assigned on payment of market value also, the provisions of the Government Grants Act would applicable for all assignments/alienations of Government lands.

5. In this case, it is to be seen that even according to the impugned proceedings of the District Collector, the proceedings of the then Joint Collector dated 29.1.1992 alongwith the patta file and material papers are available. Even there is an endorsement that Condition No. 1 of the market value patta regarding deletion of non-alienation clause. Whether the then Joint Collector has correctly issued the proceedings 29.1.1992 or not cannot be considered at this point of time.

6. In Nimmagadda Rama Devi and others v. The District Collector, Krishna and another, 1996 (