Judgment :- An extent of Ac.20.60 cents of land in Survey Nos. 539 and 540 situated at Horseleyhills Township of Kotavooru Village, Madapally Mandal, chittoor District was allotted by the Government in favour of Cooperative House building Society, Horseleyhills, through G.O. Ms. No. 539, Revenue Department, dated 02/06/1972 on payment of market value. Thereafter, the Society obtained lay out for the land. One Sri Amara Reddy wa allotted land admeasuring 416.67 square yards in plot No.62 (old survey No.5) and he constructed a house thereon,. It was assigned door No. 425. Amara Reddy sold the house to one Sri Subrahmanayam in the year 1990 and from him, the petitioner purchased on 22/12/2004 through a registered sale deed. The petitioner intended to sell the pro9perty and p0resented a sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, B. Kothakota Mandal, 4th respondent herein. The document was kept pending by assigning P. No.4 of 2008. Ultimately, through communication, dated 06/04/2010, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that the document cannot be registered, in view of the prohibition ordained through Section 22-A of the Registration Act(for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said communication. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is no doubt true that Section 22-A of the Act, as amended by A.P. Act 19 of 2007 prohibits registration of documents in relation to the lands held by Government, religious and charitable institutions and the land rendered as surplus under the A.P land reforms (Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings)Act. In addition to that, the prohibition alienation of properties or nay notification contemplated under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of the provision is published. In the instant case, the land no doubt was owned by the Government at one point of time. However, it was allotted in favour of Society on payment of market value determined by the District Collector. G.O. M.S.No.593, dated 02/06/1972 was issued in this behalf. With that, the Society became the absolute owner and it allotted plots after obtaining the lay out. The original allottee constructed the house and sold it in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. On both the events, no objection was raised by anyone, obviously because the G.O. did not contain any clause prohibiting alienation. The 4th respondent acted on the basis of the information furnished to him by the revenue authorities. The original allottee constructed the house and sold it in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. On both the events, no objection was raised by anyone, obviously because the G.O. did not contain any clause prohibiting alienation. The 4th respondent acted on the basis of the information furnished to him by the revenue authorities. It appears that the revenue records did not reflect the fact that the land to an extent of Ac.20.60 cents in Survey Nos. 539 and 540 was transferred in favour of the Society. The prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Act cannot operate in respect of the land, which is transferred by the Government on receiving the market value. Further, the allottee of the plot did not derive any right from the Government, nor any conditions were incorporated in the sale deed executed in his favour by the Society, that prohibits alienation. Viewed from any angle, the impugned communication cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the 4th respondent is directed to take further steps on the document presented by the petitioner and release the same after compliance with the other formalities. There shall be no order as to costs, This rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Honorable Sri Madan B. Lokur, the Chief Justice on this Thursday, the Second day of February Two Thousand and Twelve.