Judgment :- (1) SAME questions of fact and law arises for consideration in these two Writ Petitions. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal. (2) AN extent of Acs. 6. 19 cents situated in Survey No. 1968/2 of Doddipalli village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, was assigned way back in the year 1934 in favour of Shaik Davood Saheb. Similarly, an extent of Acs. 9. 44 cents situated in survey No. 1966/1 of the same village was assigned in favour of Attar Abdul Khadar @ Khadu Saheb. Both the pieces of land changed hands on account of subsequent sales in favour of various individuals. The petitioners in W. P. No. 27249 of 2007 and w. P. No. 28393 of 2007 are at present said to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands in Survey Nos. 1968/2 and 1966/1 respectively. (3) THE petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District-the fourth respondent herein, to ascertain stamp duty for effecting sale of the lands in their respective possession and enjoyment. However, the fourth respondent is said to have informed the petitioners that according to the information available to them, lands belong to the Government and unless they obtain No Objection Certificate from the revenue Authorities, registration of the documents could not be possible. It is in this context, the petitioners approached the tahsildar, Piler. (4) THE Tahsildar, availed this opportunity to initiate proceedings under the a. P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of transfers) Act, 1977 ("the Act" for brevity), and issued notices to the petitioners. Representations/explanations were submitted. After a detailed consideration of the issue, the tahsildar addressed separate communications dated 15. 6. 2007 and 21. 6. 2007 respectively, taking the view that the records of the original assignment are not available, the assignments were made much prior to issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 1142 dated 18. 6. 1954, which imposed conditions prohibiting alienation and that the transfer in favour of the petitioners has taken place before the Act came into force. He, accordingly, recommended for issuance of No Objection certificate to the petitioners to enable them to alienate their lands. The Revenue divisional Officer, in turn, forwarded the recommendations of the Mandal Revenue officer to the District Collector with his own comments. However, the District collector addressed a letter dated 27. 10. He, accordingly, recommended for issuance of No Objection certificate to the petitioners to enable them to alienate their lands. The Revenue divisional Officer, in turn, forwarded the recommendations of the Mandal Revenue officer to the District Collector with his own comments. However, the District collector addressed a letter dated 27. 10. 2007 to the Sub-Registrar, Piler, stating that according to the information furnished by the Tahsildar, who was required to enquire into the matter, the lands belong to the government as per the Village Accounts and in that view of the matter, No Objection certificate cannot be issued. The petitioners, feel aggrieved by the proceedings of the District Collector, and filed these writ petitions. (5) RESPONDENTS filed a detailed counter-affidavit. (6) THE factum of the Tahsildar submitting a report to the Revenue Divisional officer and forwarding the same to the district Collector is admitted. It is stated that once the Government assigns the lands, the conditions prohibiting alienation continue to operate and subsequent alienation would not make any difference. It is also stated that even if the lands cannot be resumed to the Government under the provisions of the Act, the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration act, 1908, operates. (7) HEARD Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. (8) THE proceedings dated 15. 6. 2007 and 21. 6. 2007 addressed by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer are very detailed in their content. Various steps, commencing from the assignment in the years 1934 and 1937 respectively, till the date of the proceedings are mentioned in detail. Three points emerge from this communication, namely, (a) The record of the original assignment is not available; (b) That the prohibition against alienation of assigned lands was incorporated for the first time in the year 1954 and the assignments in question were earlier in point of time; and (c) Since the alienations have taken place much before the commencement of the Act, the lands cannot be resumed to the Government. (9) IT is not as if the District Collector had just repeated the information received by him from the Tahsildar when he issued the impugned proceedings. A comparison of the communication that emanated from the tahsildar the impugned proceedings discloses that there is hardly any unanimity. (9) IT is not as if the District Collector had just repeated the information received by him from the Tahsildar when he issued the impugned proceedings. A comparison of the communication that emanated from the tahsildar the impugned proceedings discloses that there is hardly any unanimity. As a matter of fact, the District Collector has put something in the mouth of the Tahsildar and ignored the categorical observations in the two proceedings referred to above. (10) BE that as it may, when the government itself incorporated conditions prohibiting alienation for the first time in the year 1954, it is just unimaginable as to how the same condition would operate for the assignments made two decades earlier thereto. Another aspect of the matter is that a purchaser of an assigned land virtually enjoys the possession adverse to the interest of the Government and with the expiry of thirty {30} years stipulated under the limitation Act, 1963, he acquires ownership rights by way of prescription. (11) THE uncertainty prevailing about the nature of the assignment and the condition therefor is sought to be put against the assignees and the subsequent transferees, and the Revenue Authorities are making attempt to turn the benefit of doubt in their favour. Law does not provide for issuance of any No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Authorities. It is almost a matter of convenience. Taking advantage of that, all possible things are dug of and the rights of the citizens are sought to be trampled, without there being any material. At any rate, in the instant case, after thorough verification and enquiry, the tahsildar certified that the Government cannot claim any rights over the land and recommended for issuance of No Objection certificate. A totally different interpretation was placed upon this report through the impugned order. (12) BOTH the writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.