O R D E R

Heard Sri Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in including the petitioner’s land of an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.610-A3 of Peddapalli Village fields, Sidhout (Siddhavatam) Mandal, YSR District in the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass book Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”), as illegal and arbitrary.

3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Sy.No.610-A3 of Peddapalli Village fields was assigned in favor of one P.Ranganayakulu, S/o P.Venkata Subbaiah. The assignee availed a loan by mortgaging the property with District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Kadapa. Since the mortgagor failed to repay the said loan, the subject property was auctioned by the District Co-operative Central Bank, vide Award in E.P.No.1290 of 2000-2001, dated 09.12.1999. The petitioner’s vendor purchased the property.

(b) The Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer of Special Duty confirmed the sale vide proceedings dated 30.06.2006 and issued sale certificate on 22.08.2006 under Form No.10 under Sub-rule

14(V) of Rule 52 of the A.p.co-operative society Rules, 1964. The petitioner’s vendor made an application under Form VIA of the Act and when the same was rejected, he filed W.P.No.20381 of 2017, and the writ petition was allowed on 18.04.2022. The petitioner’s vendor intended to alienate the property and approached the Sub- Registrar to present the documents for registration. The Sub- Registrar refused to furnish the valuation particulars on the ground that the subject land is included in the prohibited properties list. Then, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21174 of 2023. The petitioner filed Mee-seva application vide No.TATTA012400119067 dated 18.03.2024 for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited properties list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act. Since the application is not considered, the above writ petition is filed.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue is not disputing the filing of application by the petitioner on 18.03.2024 seeking deletion of his properties from the prohibited properties list.

4. Whether the assigned land that was mortgaged and later put to auction, still the nature of the land will remain assigned? The answer to the said question is no longer res Integra. In Sub-

Registrar, Sri Kalahasti s. K.Guravaiah1.Division Bench of the composite High Court discussed the validity of such a sale, and finally concluded that when the bid was knocked down in favour of auction purchaser is confirmed and a sale deed has been executed by the concerned Co-operative Bank, the sale is valid. When once the property was mortgaged to the Cooperative Society, which is not prohibited, sold in the auction for realization of debt due under the award, such transaction is exempted from the application of provisions of Act No.09 of 1977. The same view was expressed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in N.Raja Reddy vs the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District (W.P.Nos.14743 and 14750 of 2007 dated 26.07.2007). Division Bench in the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Y.Prabhakar Naidu (W.A.No.921 of 2021 dated 03.01.2022)

reiterated the same principle.

5. Division Bench of Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of A.P. vs. P.Usha Rani2 examined the issue based on the principle laid down in K.Guravaiah’s case and held that Section 5 of

1 2009(2) ALD 250 (DB)

2 (2018) 6 ALD 397

the Act 9 of 1977 prohibits registration and, sub-section (1) thereof, requires the District Collector to furnish the Registering Officer a list of lands assigned in