Judgment This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in refusing to register simple mortgage deed dated 11-9-2012 in respect of the petitioners’ agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.31-00 in Sy.Nos.2196/3, 2196/2, 2196-1, 2195/1A 1B, 2195-2A, 2195-2B, 2195-2C, 2195/2D, 2195/1/C1, 2195/1/C2, 2194-A, 2194/B, 2187-8A, 21987-8b, 2187-8c, 2187-9, 2193-2, 2834-1A, 1B, 1C and 2834-4A, 4B, 4C, situated at Damalacheruvu Revenue village, Pakala village, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to receive and register the simple mortgage deed in respect of the above mentioned property. I have heard Sri P. Hemachandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.26-33 cents of agricultural land in various survey numbers referred to above and petitioner No.2 claims to be the owner of Ac.15-60 cents in some of the said survey numbers and also in other survey numbers situated in the same village. The petitioners averred that they have purchased the said lands under registered sale deeds on different dates between 2003 and 2005 and that they have raised Mango orchards over the lands and also been raising dry crops. When respondent No.3 threatened to lay road over their lands, the petitioners filed W.P.No.22213/2009 wherein this court has granted a restraint order against the said respondent. When the petitioners approached respondent No.2 for issuing valuation certificate in respect of the above mentioned lands for obtaining agricultural loan from the State Bank of Hyderabad, he has refused to issue the same on the ground that the lands are D.K.T. lands. Feeling aggrieved by the said refusal, the petitioners filed W.P.No.27344/2012. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 12-9-2012 whereby while permitting the petitioners to make a fresh representation for issuance of valuation certificate for the purpose of payment of registration fee and stamp duty, a direction was also given to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners’ request and furnish the necessary information. After disposal of the said Writ Petition, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 for issuance of the valuation certificate and the said respondent has accordingly issued the same. Based on the said valuation certificate, the petitioners executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the Bank and sought to present the same for registration. After disposal of the said Writ Petition, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 for issuance of the valuation certificate and the said respondent has accordingly issued the same. Based on the said valuation certificate, the petitioners executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the Bank and sought to present the same for registration. Respondent No.2 has however refused to receive the said document on the ground that the lands covered thereby are assigned lands, included in the list of prohibited properties. Aggrieved by the said action of respondent No.2, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein he has inter alia stated that Sy.No.1979/3 comprises a total extent of Acs.852.3 cents classified as “Gayalu” as per A-Register of Damalcheruvu village and that out of the said extent, Acs.480-67 cents is assigned land and the remaining extent of Acs.371-63 cents is waste land. Respondent No.3 has put the petitioners to strict proof of their claim that they are the owners of the property in question. He has further stated that the land claimed by the petitioners is a Government land as per the entries in the revenue record. It is an undisputed position that prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18-6-1954 (in the affidavit the petitioners have wrongly mentioned the date as 18-4-1954), the assigned lands did not contain any clause prohibiting their alienation. For the first time, by the said G.O., a clause prohibiting alienations of the assigned lands was introduced in the assignment conditions in Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the lands in question were assigned somewhere between the years 1932 and 1948. In support of this plea, the petitioners have filed a copy of proceedings in Roc.A/627/2001, dated 20-4-2012 of respondent No.3 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, wherein he has traced the history of the lands in survey numbers such as Sy.No.2196/3 and various other survey numbers over which the petitioners are claiming right. He has categorically mentioned in his report that all the sub-divided survey numbers as mentioned in his report relate to the lands assigned between 1932 and 1948 and that during the said period, there was no condition in the D.K.T. pattas prohibiting the sale or purchase of such lands. He has categorically mentioned in his report that all the sub-divided survey numbers as mentioned in his report relate to the lands assigned between 1932 and 1948 and that during the said period, there was no condition in the D.K.T. pattas prohibiting the sale or purchase of such lands. Respondent No.3 has also mentioned that this Court has declared that the assignees of the lands prior to 1954 have saleable rights. The above discussed material would clinchingly establish that the petitioners have purchased the lands of which assignments were made prior to the issue of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18-6-1954. Admittedly, there was no prohibition of alienation of the assigned lands during that period. Being well aware of this position, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been preventing the petitioners from registering the mortgage deed. This attitude on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is wholly reprehensible. They cannot claim to be so naïve as not to realize that there is a clear cut demarcation between the two categories of assigned lands, namely, lands assigned prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142 and that assigned post G.O.Ms.No.1142. Despite this clear distinction, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have harassed the petitioners and forced them to approach this Court again and again. Further, unless the lands are registrable, the registering authority will not issue the valuation certificate therefor. Having issued the valuation certificate, from which it is reasonable to presume that respondent No.2 was satisfied that there was no legal impediment for registration of the petitioners’ property, surprisingly, he has refused registration forcing the latter to initiate another round of litigation by filing the present Writ Petition. This conduct of respondent Nos.2 and 3 deserves serious condemnation. For the above mentioned reasons, I find no justification for respondent No.2 in not registering the mortgage deed sought to be presented by the petitioners. He is accordingly directed to register the mortgage deed, subject to the petitioners complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/-each, payable to the petitioners for forcing on the latter avoidable litigation. Respondent No.1 is directed to hold appropriate enquiry to fix responsibility on the officers concerned and recover the same from their pay. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, WPMP No.43440 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.