Judgment : The petitioner was granted a settlement patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer, under the Estates Abolition Act, in the year 1957, in respect of Ac.14.64 cents of land in Sy.No.36/2 of Kommadi village, Chinnagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. He intended to sell the property in favour of an intending purchaser and approached the Sub-Registrar, with a request to furnish the particulars of market value, stamp duty, registration charges, etc. However, the land referred to above was included in a list appended to a notification dated 31-05-2005 issued by the Government, in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’), amended through A.P Act 4 of 1999. In that view of the matter, the Sub-Registrar refused to furnish the particulars. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said inclusion. 2. The petitioner contends that once the settlement patta was granted, the question of it being treated, as AWD does not arise. He asserts that at no point of time, the land was assigned to him or his predecessors, and that the inclusion of the land in the list of assigned lands is untenable. 3. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the notification was issued at a time when Section 22-A of the Act, as it existed in the year 2005, was in force. As regards the land of the petitioner, it is stated that though the land in Syl.No.36/2 was not classified as AWD, it was included in the list, since it is in the immediate neighbourhood of Sy.No.37 of Kommadi Village, that was assigned to eligible persons. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. The Andhra Pradesh State Legislature inserted Section 22-A into the Registration Act, through A.P Act 4 of 1999. That provision prohibited registration of documents in respect of the lands, that are included in the notification issued by the Government under that provision. The said provision was set aside by this Court. Thereafter, the provision with the same number, but with different text, was introduced with Act 19 of 2007. This provision does not contemplate publication of notification in respect of Government or assigned lands. It is only in respect of the properties mentioned in Clause (e) of sub-section (1) thereof, that a notification is necessary. 6. Thereafter, the provision with the same number, but with different text, was introduced with Act 19 of 2007. This provision does not contemplate publication of notification in respect of Government or assigned lands. It is only in respect of the properties mentioned in Clause (e) of sub-section (1) thereof, that a notification is necessary. 6. Mere existence of information with the registering authority, that the land in a particular survey number is an assigned one, or owned by the Government, in the absence of any notification would attract the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Act. The G.O., issued earlier, can be treated as a list, referable to the existing provision. Therefore, as long as the land in Sy.No.36/2 is included in the list of Government/assigned lands, the petitioner cannot expect furnishing of information, much less registration of documents, in relation to that land. 7. The petitioner made several attempts to convince the respondents to delete the land in Sy.No.36/2 from the list of Government/assigned lands. That plea did not fructify. In this case, the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, has disclosed the circumstances under which, the land came to be included in the list. The 3rd respondent stated, “…I submit that a part of land covered by Sy.No.37 of Kommadi Village was assigned to the eligible identified beneficiaries, the land claimed by the petitioner which is the subject matter of the present writ petition is adjacent to the said assigned land and this could be the reason for notifying this land in G.O.Ms.No.581, dt.4.5.2005”. 8. This statement, coupled with the non-denial of the fact that the land in Sy.No.36/2 was not assigned, much less was held by the Government; leads to an inescapable conclusion that the inclusion thereof in G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 04-05-2005 was without basis. The result is that the land in Sy.No.36/2 admeasuring Ac.14.64 cents in respect of which, the petitioner was granted settlement patta; cannot be treated as Government land, much less the prohibition contained under Section 22A of the Act would apply to it. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 10. The miscellaneous petition in this Writ Petition shall stand disposed of. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.