Judgment :- Anil R. Dave, C.J. 1. 1. This appeal is filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.14750 of 2007 questioning the order dated 26.7.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. By virtue of the said order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed and it has been directed that the properties purchased by the petitioner shall not be treated as assigned lands and the first respondent (appellant No.1 herein) shall process the documents presented for transfer of title in accordance with law. 2. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the litigation have been described as arrayed in the petition. 3. 3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner had purchased the lands bearing Sy.No.137/2 admeasuring Ac.3.76 cents; Sy.No.137/3 admeasuring Ac.1.17 cents, totally admeasuring Ac.6.63 cents situated in Udamalapadu Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District in a public auction conducted by District Co-operative Central Bank, Chittoor (for short, 'the bank'). Originally, the afore-stated lands were assigned in favour of Shri K. Bheemaiah, as per the rules governing grant of assignment of agricultural lands. The said K. Bheemaiah had mortgaged the said lands with the bank as he had borrowed money from the bank. Since he could not repay the loan amount, the mortgaged lands were auctioned by the bank under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Co-operative Societies Act'). The petitioner had participated in the auction and had purchased the afore-stated lands, pursuant to which a sale certificate was also issued in his favour by the Special Category Deputy Registrar-cum-Officer on Special Duty, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Chittoor (the second respondent herein). Thereafter, on an application made by the petitioner, pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Subsequently, when the petitioner wanted to sell the afore-stated lands in favour of third parties, Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti (appellant No.1 herein) refused to entertain the sale-deed for registration on the ground that the assigned lands cannot be alienated. Thereupon, being aggrieved by the said refusal, the petitioner filed the afore-stated writ petition. 4. 4. Subsequently, when the petitioner wanted to sell the afore-stated lands in favour of third parties, Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti (appellant No.1 herein) refused to entertain the sale-deed for registration on the ground that the assigned lands cannot be alienated. Thereupon, being aggrieved by the said refusal, the petitioner filed the afore-stated writ petition. 4. 4. For the purpose of examining correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasthi - respondent No.1, it would be necessary to consider the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, "the Assigned Lands Act"), which have been reproduced herein below: 5. Prohibition of registration of assigned lands:-Notwithstanding anything in the Registration Act, 1908, on or after the commencement of this Act, no registering officer shall accept for registration any document relating to the transfer of, or the creation of any interest in, any assigned land included in a list of assigned lands in the district which shall be prepared by the District Collector and furnished to the registering officer, except after obtaining prior permission of the District Collector concerned for such registration. 5. 6. Exemption:- Nothing in this Act shall apply to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the State or Central Government, any local authority, a co operative society, a scheduled bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central Government, as may be notified by the Government, in this behalf. 1. 5. The learned Single Judge considered the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act, particularly Section 6 and held that once the mortgage of assigned land in favour of a co-operative society is exempted, the other consequential steps taken for foreclosure of the same also stand exempted, and that if an assigned land is put to sale in pursuance of a mortgage, it loses its character of assigned land and the exemption available under Section 6 continues to the purchasers in a sale by the society or financial institution. 2. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the lands which are the subject matter of the petition are assigned lands and the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act prohibit registration of any document relating to transfer etc. of assigned lands. 2. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that the lands which are the subject matter of the petition are assigned lands and the provisions of Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act prohibit registration of any document relating to transfer etc. of assigned lands. He has submitted that Section 6 deals with exemption of the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act in relation to mortgage only and a co-operative society is not authorized to sell the assigned lands. He has drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.471, Food & Agriculture (Co-op.VI) Department, dated 18.6.1977, whereby the Government had permitted the Agricultural Development Banks to issue loans on the mortgage of assigned lands subject to the condition that in the event of default, the banks can sell the lands/properties and the sale proceeds should be distributed between the bank and the government. The learned Government Pleader has further submitted that the said G.O. was in force for a limited period till 18.6.1999 and thereafter, the banks/co-operative societies are not permitted to sell the mortgaged lands and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is untenable. He has also drawn our attention to G.O.Ms.No.1033, Food and Agriculture (Co-op.III) Department, dated 21.5.1970, whereunder the Government has issued instructions for sale of assigned land on certain conditions when lands are mortgaged by the members of Scheduled Castes. As sale of the lands in question were not covered by the afore-stated cases, according to the learned Government Pleader, the sale of the lands in question was hit by Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act and as the assigned lands did not lose their character, the Sub-Registrar had acted in accordance with the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act and the instructions issued by the government from time to time. According to him, the learned Single Judge did not consider all these aspects, besides the powers of the Sub-Registrar. .7. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has supported the order .passed by the learned Single Judge. He has submitted that the petitioner had purchased the lands in question by participating in an auction, which was conducted by the bank. The lands in question had been mortgaged by the original assignee to secure the debt, which he had incurred by borrowing money from the bank. He has submitted that the petitioner had purchased the lands in question by participating in an auction, which was conducted by the bank. The lands in question had been mortgaged by the original assignee to secure the debt, which he had incurred by borrowing money from the bank. It has been submitted that by virtue of the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act, mortgage in favour of a co-operative society is permissible even if it is assigned land. If mortgage in favour of a co-operative society, which has been duly registered, is permissible and if the land in question had been legitimately mortgaged with the bank, upon non-payment of the mortgage money, it was open to the bank to auction the land so as to recover the amount of mortgage money. In the instant case, according to the learned advocate, the original assignee did not pay his dues and, therefore, after following the legal procedure and after obtaining necessary certificate under Section 71 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the lands in question had been auctioned by the bank and at the auction, the petitioner being the highest bidder, the land in question had been sold to him. The sale had been confirmed and necessary certificate to that effect had also been issued. 3. 8. According to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in view of the above fact, when the ownership in respect of the lands in question had been transferred by virtue of the auction sale, it was obligatory on the part of the Sub-Registrar, namely, respondent No.1 to register the sale-deed so as to show the petitioner as an owner of the lands in question in the property register. According to him, respondent No.1 could not have denied registration especially when there was a just and proper sale whereby ownership in respect of the lands in question had been transferred to respondent No.1. 4. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act so as to substantiate his case. According to him, there was no effort to violate any of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, instructions, if any, given to respondent No.1 would not prevent respondent No.1 from registering the transactions. 4. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act so as to substantiate his case. According to him, there was no effort to violate any of the provisions of the Act and, therefore, instructions, if any, given to respondent No.1 would not prevent respondent No.1 from registering the transactions. He has further submitted that looking to the facts of the case, the provisions incorporated in Section 5 of the Assigned Lands Act would not apply and, therefore, respondent No.1 -Sub-Registrar was not right when he refused to get the sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner registered. 5. 10. We have heard the learned advocates and have also perused the judgments referred to by the learned Single Judge. .11. We are conscious of the fact that the Assigned Lands Act had been enacted so as to see that those poor persons to whom the lands were assigned by the State are not exploited and other well to do people do not take undue advantage of the poverty of the assignees of the government land by purchasing the assigned lands at a throw away price from the assignees. The relevant portion of the statement of object and reasons is reproduced below: ."The Government have launched, with effect from the 1st November, 1969, a special crash programme for assignment of Government waste lands to the landless poor persons. The rules regarding assignment of land and the conditions incorporated in 'D' form pattas prohibit alienation of such lands and provide for its resumption as well as re-grant to eligible persons. However, past experience has shown that substantial extents of lands assigned to landless poor persons have been actually alienated and are in possession of well-to-do persons. As the existing rules do not have any provisions for punishment of persons who have purchased such lands, efforts made for assigning large extents of lands to landless poor persons are going waste. With a view to enforce the objective more effectively, it is considered that a protective legislation is necessary so as to prescribe a punishment to persons who have purchased such lands. With a view to enforce the objective more effectively, it is considered that a protective legislation is necessary so as to prescribe a punishment to persons who have purchased such lands. Further, there have been requests, from time to time, for enacting a protective legislation against transfers and alienations of assigned lands on the model of legislation existing in regard to the Scheduled Tribes in the Scheduled areas of Andhra Pradesh, which prohibits alienation of lands and provides for restoration of such lands to the assignees has therefore been decided to undertake legislation immediately to prohibit alienation of assigned lands to landless poor persons and to provide for punishment of purchasers of such lands." 6. 12. Upon perusal of the afore-stated object and the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act, it is very clear that the Legislature wanted to see that the assignees of the government lands are duly protected. The intention behind grant or assignment of land in favour of poor persons was to see that they carry out their agricultural activities or they have a shelter so as to live peacefully. It was the experience of the government that assignees of government lands, either because of their poverty or because of cunningness of other well-to-do persons, were transferring the assigned lands. So as to prevent the said fact and to prevent people from taking undue advantage of poverty of the assignees of the lands, the Act had been enacted. 7. 13. For the purpose of deciding the case, one has to look at the definition of 'assigned land'. The term has been defined under Section 2 (1) of the Assigned Lands Act and the same reads as under: 8. 2. Definitions: 1) "assigned land" means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly. Explanation:- A mortgage in favour of the following shall not be regarded as an alienation, namely:-1) the Central Government, or the State Government or any local authority; 2) any co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964; and 3) any bank which includes:- a) the Agricultural Development Bank; b) the Reserve Bank of India constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Ct, 1934; c) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; d) a subsidiary bank as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; and e) a corresponding new bank constituted under Section 3 of the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970; 1. 14. One has also to see whether the mortgage created in favour of the bank by the original assignee of the land was just, proper and legal. The assignee of the land can raise money by mortgaging the land so as to develop the land or to do some other better financial activity. At the same time, to see that unscrupulous elements do not lend money to the poor assignees so as to have the assigned land transferred in their favour, the mortgage executed in favour of the authorities enumerated in the explanation was not to be treated as 'alienation'. When mortgage in favour of a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is not treated as alienation, in our opinion, mortgage executed in favour of the bank by the original assignee would be absolutely just and legal. 2. 15. Thus, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that the original assignee of the lands in question had mortgaged the land in favour of the bank in an absolutely lawful manner. The afore-stated fact has not been disputed anywhere in the entire proceedings. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the original assignees were authorized to mortgage the assigned lands in favour of the bank because the bank is a co-operative society under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. 3. 16. Onceit is held that the mortgage was legal and valid, then one has to look at the natural consequences which would follow when the mortgage money is not repaid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. 3. 16. Onceit is held that the mortgage was legal and valid, then one has to look at the natural consequences which would follow when the mortgage money is not repaid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. The term 'mortgage' has been defined under Section 58 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads as under: 4. 58. "Mortgage", "mortgagor", "mortgagee", "mortgage-money" and "mortgaged" defined. (a) A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability. The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgagee; the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed. ... ... ... 17. Thus, when the property is mortgaged, interest in the property is transferred by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. If the mortgage money is not repaid, the consequences provided in the Transfer of Property Act would naturally follow. We need not go in detail about the same because it is not in dispute that the mortgage money was not paid by the original assignee of the assigned lands to the bank and, therefore, the bank had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The bank ultimately obtained recovery certificate under the provisions of Section 71 of the afore-stated Act and after following legal procedure, the lands in question were put to auction and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the highest bidder and ultimately, the assigned lands were sold to him. The sale executed in favour of the petitioner was confirmed and a sale-deed had been executed. If the property in the assigned land had been transferred to the petitioner, the revenue record must be completed accordingly by showing the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question. 2. 18. Section 5 of the Act has been enacted with an intention to see that one who wants to transfer the assigned land in contravention of the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act cannot transfer the land further. 2. 18. Section 5 of the Act has been enacted with an intention to see that one who wants to transfer the assigned land in contravention of the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act cannot transfer the land further. Normally, a purchaser of the immovable property would look into the revenue record and after having necessary search, if he finds that the seller is the lawful owner, he would purchase the property, but if he comes to know that the property to be purchased is not in the name of the seller or if there is any charge or burden on the land in question, he would be careful before purchasing the property. The facts with regard to any encumbrance created on the land can be known from the revenue record. So as to see that an assignee of the assigned land, in contravention of the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act, cannot enter into any transaction in relation to the assigned land, so as to dupe someone, Section 5 has been enacted by the Legislature. Thus, Section 5 has been incorporated with an intention to see that the illegality committed by the assignee or the seller of the assigned land is not further perpetuated and to warn the probable purchaser to the effect that the property he is planning to purchase cannot be lawfully purchased by him. 3. 19. 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 hereinabove, 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 mortgaging the assigned land in favour of the bank. Thus, the mortgage was valid. As the mortgage money was not repaid to the bank, the bank sold the land after following due process of law and thereby the petitioner became a lawful owner of the land in question. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section 5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in assigned land. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, provisions of Section 5 would not operate because the prohibition is on registration of any document relating to transfer or creation of any interest in assigned land. In the instant case, the transaction in pursuance of which the land had been purchased by the petitioner was valid and not contrary to the provisions of the Assigned Lands Act. In such a case, in our opinion, if the concerned party had approached the District Collector for obtaining prior permission, the District Collector was bound to accord necessary permission in favour of the person seeking such permission. At the most, the authorities could have approached the District Collector for seeking permission under Section 5 and in that event, the District Collector was bound to give permission in view of the fact that the bank, admittedly a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, could have become a mortgagee in respect of the assigned land. 4. 20. The submissions made by the learned Government Pleader with regard to sharing of sale proceeds between the creditor bank and the government under G.O.Ms.No.471, dated 18.6.1977 are not relevant now for the reason that even according to him, the afore-stated G.O., which has been referred to in para (6) hereinabove, is no more in force today. On the contrary, the above referred G.O. clearly permits sale of mortgaged land. As the subject G.O. is not in force now, the learned Government Pleader cannot even submit that the sale proceeds of the land in question should be shared by the creditor bank and by the government. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with the sale proceeds, but we are concerned only with registration of the document whereby land has been sold to the petitioner in pursuance of the auction conducted by the bank. 5. 21. Reference to G.O.Ms.No.1033, dated 21.5.1970 by the learned Government Pleader would also not assist him for the reason that the said G.O. also deals with certain instructions with regard to sale of assigned lands when they are mortgaged by members of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes. In the instant case, at no point of time anyone has referred to caste or creed of the original assignee and in the absence of such material, we do not think it necessary to deal with the said submission also. In the instant case, at no point of time anyone has referred to caste or creed of the original assignee and in the absence of such material, we do not think it necessary to deal with the said submission also. 6. 22. In view of the above facts, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the petition by directing respondent No.1 to register the sale-deed in accordance with law as Section 5 of the Act would not come in way of the parties in the matter of registration of the document. 7. 23. For the afore-stated reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.