ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.6 in keeping the Sale Deed dated 10.07.2013 pending registration as pending document P.No.40 of 2013 for the land in extant of Ac.0.94 Cents in Sy.No.587/1A and Ac.0.72 Cents out of Ac.4.34 Cents in SY.No.587/D of Rayachoty Village fields, Rayachoty Mandal, YSR District, on one ground or the other, even though, all the revenue records shows that the same is private patta land and in not completing the process of registration and releasing the same as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and voilative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.6 to register and release the Sale Deed, date 10.07.2013 assigned as pending document P.No.40/2013 forthwith and to pass such other order or orders...”

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that originally an extent of Ac.5.90 cents I Sy.No.587/1 of Rayachoty Village fields, Rayachoty Mandal, YSR District was auctioned for recovery of the loan amount which was sanctioned in favour of its original owner. Thereafter, the above extent in Sy.No.587/1 was sub- divided as Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.587/1A, Ac.0.54 cents in Sy.No.587/1B, Ac.0-08 cents in Sy.No.587/1C and Ac.4.34 cents in Sy.No.587/1D on 01.07.2010. Out of which, the land in an extent of Ac.0-54 cents in Sy.No.587/1B and Ac.0-08 cents in Sy.No.587/41C was acquired for the purpose of Outer Ring Road and kept the remaining extents with them.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that they purchased an extent of Ac.0-94 cents in Sy.No.587/1A and Ac.0.72 cents out of Ac.4.34 cents in Sy.No.587/1D through a sale deed dated 10.07.2013 for a valid sale consideration. When their vendor submitted the sale deed dated 10.07.2013 for registration, the 6th respondent having admitted the said document, kept the same vide pending document No.P40/2013, since then the 6th respondent is postponing the process of registration on one ground or other for the last three years, without any reason, though all legal formalities for registration are fulfilled. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. Having gone through the material on record, it appears that the land in question was purchased in the public auction conducted by the P.A.C.S., Rayachoty. As per the endorsement issued by the District Collector to the Tahsildar, the District Collector clarified that since the subject land was purchased in the public auction, the same will not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.471, F & A Department, dated 18.06.1977 and do not attract the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Further, as per the endorsement of the Tahsildar-5th respondent, dated 04.02.2008, the Tahsildar clarified the same that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 will not attract, since the subject land was purchased in the public auction conducted by the PACS, Rayachoty.

6. Now, it would be appropriate to refer Para-19 of Judgment in the case of Sub-Registrar Vs K. Guravaiah and another1 of this Court, wherein it is held as follows:-

“Let us consider the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act in the light of the facts of the present case. In the present case, as stated herein above, it was open to the original assignees of the land to mortgage the land to the bank by virtue of the definition of Section 2(1). If the mortgage in favour of the bank was not alienation, there was no restriction with regard to the mortgaging the assigned land in

1 2008 SCC OnLine AP