Judgment :- The petitioner is a private limited company. One of its activities is to acquire properties and to develop them for real estate purposes. It purchased about 45 acres of land in various sub-divisions of Sy.No.103 of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through different sale deeds at various points of time from the respective owners. The petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District-2nd respondent herein with a request to furnish information as to the stamp duty, registration charges etc., for respective extents of lands proposed to be purchased by it. The 2nd respondent, however, refused to furnish particulars on the ground that as per the information received by him from the Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal, the land is ‘assigned’ in character and that has been since resumed to the Government. Obviously, he was trying to enforce the prohibition contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”) as amended by Act No.19 of 2007. The petitioner contends that its vendors were granted Laoni pattas in respect of different extents of land on payment of consideration determined by the revenue authorities way back in the year 1952, and that there was no condition prohibiting the alienation of lands in question. According to the petitioner, neither the provisions contained under Section 22-A of the Act nor the ones under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 would apply to such lands. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit are filed. It is stated that the land to an extent of Ac.708.15 guntas, in Sy.No.103, is a Government land and on finding that some persons are unauthorisedly cultivating the land, an amount of Rs.630/-was levied towards Shivai-E-Jamabandhi. It is also stated that Laoni pattas were granted in the year 1968 in favour of about 70 individuals in respect of different extents of land in Sy.No.103. It is further stated that the lands assigned were resumed to the Government by initiating proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977,duly following the prescribed procedure and as of now, the lands are vested with the Government. They contend that the vendors of the petitioner were not entitled to transfer the lands in view of the restrictions placed under the relevant provisions of Laoni Rules. They contend that the vendors of the petitioner were not entitled to transfer the lands in view of the restrictions placed under the relevant provisions of Laoni Rules. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the prohibition under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 or under Section 22-A of the Act would apply only when the assignment was in favour of the landless poor and the conditions prohibiting alienation were incorporated in the orders of the assignment. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the instant case, pattas were granted under Laoni Rules, on payment of consideration and that no condition, prohibiting alienation of the lands was incorporated in the pattas. He further submits that even where the assignment of lands was made in favour of landless poor, the policy decision to impose conditions prohibiting alienation of such assigned lands was taken only in the year 1958 and since the assignments made in the instant case were much prior to that, the respondents are not entitled to enforce the prohibition retrospectively. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it was only in respect of about Ac.11.18 guntas, in Sy.No. 103/43/A, 103/4A/AA and 103/50/A, that proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, were initiated and that the petitioner is pursuing the remedies available. It is urged that no proceedings were initiated against the lands, which are the subject matter of this writ petition. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that it is not in dispute that the lands were assigned in favour of the vendors of the petitioner and purchase of the assigned lands is prohibited under various provisions of law. He submits that the 5th respondent initiated proceedings under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977,on finding that the assignees violated the conditions, and passed orders of resumption in respect of the lands that were assigned in the year 1952. The land in Sy.No.103 of Shamshabad village, which is about 700 was owned by Government, out of it 625 acres was assigned in favour of 70 individuals, in the year 1952. On an average, each individual was granted patta for approx., 10 acres of land. The petitioner placed before this Court, copies of the proceedings under which its vendors acquired rights over the properties. On an average, each individual was granted patta for approx., 10 acres of land. The petitioner placed before this Court, copies of the proceedings under which its vendors acquired rights over the properties. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit, and a detailed account of the manner in which the lands were held at one point of time by the Government and thereafter assignments were made to various individuals, is furnished.A perusal of the Laoni Rules issued under the A.P.Land Revenue Act discloses that a detailed procedure has to be followed by the Tahsildar before Laoni patta in respect of any piece of land is granted. First of all, the availability of land being assigned is to be ascertained duly setting apart the lands that are need for grazing and other community purposes. Once the availability of land is ascertained, the Tahsildar has to determine the value thereof and it is only on payment of such value, the patta is granted. Hence, for all practical purposes, it is a sale by the Government, may be purely discretionary. The Laoni Rules do not provide for or stipulate any condition prohibiting alienation of lands by the purchaser or the transferee. At any rate, mere transfer of the land by one person to another does not affect the rights of the respondents, in case they are entitled to proceed against the persons who are holding titleon transfer. The respondents pleaded that assignment made in favour of the vendors was cancelled. The record, however, does not support the plea. No orders of cancellation have been placed before this Court. The orders that have been passed by the 5th respondent are in respect of different sub-divisions of Sy.No.103. Once it emerged that no orders of resumption have been passed on the lands proposed to be purchased by the petitioner nor there exists a condition prohibiting alienation of such lands, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to receive the documents, much less refuse to furnish the particulars. Once it emerged that no orders of resumption have been passed on the lands proposed to be purchased by the petitioner nor there exists a condition prohibiting alienation of such lands, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to receive the documents, much less refuse to furnish the particulars. Though other contentions are urged by both the parties, placing reliance upon certain instances, it is not necessary to deal with the same in detail in view of the limited contest in the writ petition.Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to furnish necessary information pertaining to the lands in question and entertain the documents that may be presented in relation thereto, in accordance with law, without treating the lands as owned by the Government or assigned lands. There shall be no order as to costs. This Court passed interim order of stay of dispossession on 29.12.2009, during pendency of this writ petition. The petitioner made representation to the District Collector ventilating his grievance. On consideration of the same, the District Collector passed an order dated 15-07-2009 stating that the land proposed to be purchased by the petitioner was assigned land and prohibition thereof is impermissible. The petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.4229 of 2012 seeking permission of the Court to amend the prayer which reads as follows: "to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring that the action of the 4th respondent -District Collector, Ranga Reddy District contained in Memo.No.E1/1627/2009, dated 15-07-2009 rejecting the request of the petitioner for registration of the land in Sy.No. 103 and sub-division numbers as impermissible, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the adangal/pahani copy (computerzied land records) of Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District consequently direct the respondents to entertain and register sale deeds presented by the petitioner concerning the said land and grant such other relief. Permission is granted, and hence the prayer in the writ petition is amended.