ORDER:

This application is filed to review the order dated

28.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.16019 of 2020. The present review application is filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition No.16019 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"To issue order, direction, writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declare the endorsement of 2nd respondent in file No.REV.FSECOC/6/2020- JA(F6)REV.COLCTR, dated 08.06.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Registration Act, 1908, consequently, direct the respondents to delete the land situated in Sy.No.496/1 an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of Avilala Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, from the prohibitory list U/s 22(A) of the Registration Act, and to pass such other order."

2. This Court, vide order dated 28.07.2021, has allowed the Writ Petition with the following observations:- “…the land acquisition proceedings were issued, but acquired part of the land in Sy.No.5/2 an extent of Ac.0.50 cents covered by the same patta out of Ac.2.04 cents. The proceedings of land acquisition vide Roc.F/3295/92, dated 03.05.2003 is also placed on record to substantiate the contentions of the petitioner that the patta was cancelled in favour of K. Venkataswamy, which is a part of the land covered by Sy No. 5/2. Therefore, the material available on record clinchingly established that said K. Venkataswamy was assigned an extent of Ac. 4.54 cents in Sy No. 496/1 (Ac. 2.50 cents) and S.No. 5/2 (Ac. 2.04 cents) out of Ac. 2.04 cents in Sy No.5/2. An extent of Ac. 0.50 cents was acquired and paid compensation to said K. Venkataswamy and passed Award is another strong circumstances to believe the patta granted in favour of Venkataswamy.

The petitioner acquired the land in Sy.No.

496/1 to an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in Avilala village, when the patta granted in favour of Venkataswamy is subsisting and the sale in favour of this petitioner is to be accepted and accordingly assignment of the property to Venkataswamy is true and genuine. When the land was assigned to Venkataswamy under political suffers quota by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati dated 12.10.1986, there is no restriction on alienation of the property and thereby the sale of the property assigned to political suffer is not prohibited. Therefore, inclusion of the land or notifying the land under Section 22-A(1)(e) of the Registration Act is against the law, since the restrictions under the A.P.Act 9 of 1977 have no application and thereby question of prohibiting alienation by the District Collector on the ground that it is an assigned land is contrary to the law. Hence, I find that the petitioner became the owner of the property by purchase under a Registered Sale Deed dated 14.02.1990 and entitled to deal with the property, since the provisions of the A.P. Act 9 of 1977 have no application to such land.

Accordingly, I hold that the land purchased by this petitioner in Sy.No. 496/1 in an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents notified in the prohibited property list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is illegal and arbitrary and consequently directed the 2nd respondent/District Collector to de-notify or recommend de-notification to the Government, the property from the prohibited property list under Section22-4(1)(e) of the Registration Act within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deletion, the 4th respondent/Sub Registrar is directed to receive, register and release the document presented by the petitioner for registration in accordance with law. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed....."

3. The present review application came to be filed on the following grounds:

The writ petitioner has filed some documents at the time of arguments and the same were not served on the respondents in