ORDER : The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not registering the document in favour of petitioner in respect of the property in an extent of Acres 3.04 cents out of Acres 5.04 cents in S.No.883 and Acres 3.55 cents in S.No.902, situated at Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to 5th respondent to receive the sale deed and register the same in favour of the petitioner in respect of above properties. 2. The petitioner's case is thus: (a) One Vegesna Bangarraju was a political sufferer and the Government have granted a patta in his favour in the year 1950 for an extent of Acres 5.04 cents in S.No.883 in Bondada Village vide proceedings in Roc.EI-2474/1950, dated 03.05.1950. He enjoyed the land for more than ten years and thereafter, himself and his legal heirs sold Acres 3.04 cents out of Acres 5.04 cents in favour of one Bhupathiraju Soma Raju in the year, 1960 vide registered Sale deed No.710 of 1960, dated 06.04.1960. Later, the father of the petitioner namely Srirama Raju purchased said property under a registered Sale Deed No.2575 of 1968, dated 04.09.1968. The remaining land was sold to one Manthena Satyavathi under a registered document No.2567 of 1966. dated 21.06.1966, who in turn sold the same in favour of one Thotakura Usha Rani vide registered document No.1711 of 1981, dated 18.06.1981. Thereafter also some registered sales took place in respect of the said property. (b) The further case of the petitioner is that one Chodraju Lakshmipathi Raju was also a political sufferer and he was assigned with land admeasuring Acres 3.55 cents in S.No.902 of Bondada Village and he in turn sold the said property in favour of Bhupathiraju Annapurnamma vide document No.711 of 1960, dated 05.04.1960. Said Annapurnamma sold the above property in favour of petitioner's mother Danthuluri Anasuyamma vide document No.2576 of 1968. dated 04.09.1968. (c) The further case of the petitioner is that in a family partition among his parents and other family members, the above lands fell to the share of petitioner and therefore, he became absolute owner of the same. The petitioner has been enjoying those lands uninterruptedly. His name was also mutated in all the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in his favour. The petitioner has been enjoying those lands uninterruptedly. His name was also mutated in all the revenue records and pattadar passbook and title deed were also issued in his favour. However, the lands are still in the name of his parents. Hence, on the advice of his counsel, the petitioner in order to perfect his title and avoid any future litigation proposed to obtain Sale Deed from his parents. In that context, when he approached 5th respondent for registration, he orally informed that the scheduled properties are under prohibited list as per the provisions under Section 22A of the Registration Act and therefore, registration cannot be affected. The petitioner's contention is that since last seven decades the petitioner’s family has been enjoying the subject lands by paying tax to the Government and therefore, 5th respondent has no right to refuse to register the documents. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration took notice for the respondents. No counter is filed. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the subject lands, which were purchased by the petitioner's father and mother, were originally assigned to political sufferers viz., Vegesna Bangarraju and Chodraju Lakshmipathi Raju and the assignees enjoyed their respective lands for a considerable period and thereafter sold to third parties from whom the parents of the petitioner purchased in the year 1960. Ever since they have been enjoying the subject lands. Thereafter, during the family partition the subject lands fell to the share of petitioner and in fact, Pattadar Passbook and title deeds were issued in his favour. However, since the title is still vests with his parents, he wanted to obtain Sale Deeds form his parents so as to avoid future legal complication. Thereafter, during the family partition the subject lands fell to the share of petitioner and in fact, Pattadar Passbook and title deeds were issued in his favour. However, since the title is still vests with his parents, he wanted to obtain Sale Deeds form his parents so as to avoid future legal complication. Learned counsel would strenuously argue that in this background and having regard to the fact that the petitioner's family has been enjoying the lands for the past six decades and also due to the fact that the ban against the alienation of Iands assigned to political sufferers has been lifted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1745 of Revenue Department dated 28.08.1959, the sales effected by the two political sufferers were valid and therefore, the parents of the petitioner obtained legal title over the subject properties and hence, they are entitled to execute Sale Deeds in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, there can be no valid and tenable objection for 5th respondent to refuse to register the Sale Deeds. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration, on instructions, would argue that as per the records of Tahsildar Office, Kalla, it is revealed that an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in R.S.No.902 of Bondada Village was originally assigned to Chodraju Lakshmipathi Raju in the year 1955 under political sufferers quota. The said land was kept under prohibitory list as per the provisions of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 and as regards the land in S.No.883 is concerned, only an extent of Ac.0.15 cents was kept under prohibitory list as per the provisions of Section 22A of the Registration Act. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the writ petitioner, in fact, submitted a representation in "Revenue Sadassulu" to exclude an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in R.S.No.902 of Bondada Village of Kalla Mandal and accordingly, proposals were sent to the Collector, West Godavari at Eluru to delete the said extent from Annexure 22-A (i)(a) list of Bondada Village of Kalla Mandal and the said proposal is pending before the Collector, West Godavari, Eluru. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that as per the procedure, the request for deletion or modification in any prohibited list of prohibited list notified under Section 22A of the Registration Act has to be sent to the Collector and then to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations & Stamps. The proposal in respect of Ac.3.55 cents in R.S.No.902 was already sent to the Collector and pending with him. He thus prayed to pass the orders accordingly. 7. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the lands assigned to political sufferers are alienable subsequently? 8. POINT: The law on the point involved in this writ petition is no more res integra as a Learned single Judge of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in the case of Raavi Satish v. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/AP/1093/2012 = 2013 (2) ALD 1 exhaustively dealt with the aspects of alienability of lands assigned to different categories of persons for instance, lands assigned to poor persons, Ex-servicemen, political sufferers, freedom fighters, assignment made on collection of market value etc with reference to Section 22A of the Registration Act. Among them, assignment made to political sufferers is germane for our discussion. With regard to this category of persons, learned Judge has held thus: "32. Clause (iv) of para (3) of Order-15 of the Board Standing Orders defined 'political sufferers' as persons who had gone to jail for a period of six months in connection with Indian Independence as a result of taking part in the following movements inaugurated by the lndian National Congress or under its sanction: 1. Non-Co-operative Movement 1921. 2. Nagpur Flag Satyagraha. 3. Saimon Commission Boycot 1928-29. 4. Salt Satyagraha 1930. 5. Civil Disobedience Movement 1932. 6. Individual Disobedience Movement 1932. 7. Individual Disobedience Movement 1940-41. 8. Quit lndia Movement of 1942. 9. Hyderabad Congress Movement started for integration of Hyderabad State with the Union Government leading to police action of September 1948. 33. By G.O.Ms. No. 1745. 2. Nagpur Flag Satyagraha. 3. Saimon Commission Boycot 1928-29. 4. Salt Satyagraha 1930. 5. Civil Disobedience Movement 1932. 6. Individual Disobedience Movement 1932. 7. Individual Disobedience Movement 1940-41. 8. Quit lndia Movement of 1942. 9. Hyderabad Congress Movement started for integration of Hyderabad State with the Union Government leading to police action of September 1948. 33. By G.O.Ms. No. 1745. Revenue Department, dated 28-8-1959, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has deleted the following conditions which were till then incorporated in the assignments granted to political sufferers: (a) that the lands assigned should not be alienated for a period of ten years: (b) that cultivation should be by the assignee or members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or members of his family hut the lands cannot be Ieased out or sub-let: (c) that where the land is resumed for purpose of project or any public purpose no compensation will be paid to the assignee for any improvements made by him. 34. Paragraph-2 of the said G.O. specifically permitted the political sufferers to sell away the lands assigned to them without imposing any conditions. Despite the said G.O. being in force, the Revenue officers concerned have been granting assignments to political sufferers in the standard format which are generally applicable to the landless poor persons without deleting the condition prescribing prohibition on transfer of lands. In the face of the policy decision of the State Government contained in G.O.Ms.No. 1745, dated 28-8-1959, such a condition is not Enforceable, Accordingly. I hold that the political sufferers are free to sell the lands assigned to them without any prohibition or inhibition. The respondents in this Writ Petition were therefore wholly unjustified in objecting to the sale of the properties." 9. From the above, it is crystal clear that the political sufferers are concerned, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1745 (Revenue Department) dated 28.08.1959, the condition of non-alienability for a period of 10 years, attached to the assignment was since deleted and therefore, the political sufferers were free to alienate the lands assigned to them. In the said judgment, the attitude of the Revenue department in attaching a standard format generally applicable to the landless poor persons, also to the lands assigned to political sufferers was deprecated and held that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1745 dated 28.08.1959, such a condition was not enforceable. In the said judgment, the attitude of the Revenue department in attaching a standard format generally applicable to the landless poor persons, also to the lands assigned to political sufferers was deprecated and held that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1745 dated 28.08.1959, such a condition was not enforceable. It was made clear that the political sufferers were free to sell the lands assigned to them without any prohibition or inhibition. In the instant case also, as the assignment was claimed to be made in favour of two political sufferers, that fact has to be verified from the record. 10. According to the petitioner, an extent of Ac.5.04 cents in S.NO.883 was assigned to one Vegesna Bangarraju who was political sufferer vide proceedings in Roc.No.El-247411950, dated 03.05.1950 and himself and his LRs sold Ac.3.04 cents out of Ac.5.04 cents to Bhupathiraju Somaraju under a registered document No.710 dated 06.04.1960 and said Bhupathiraju Somaraju sold the said land to Danthuluri Srirama Raju, the father of writ petitioner under a registered document No.2575 of, 1968 dated 30.08.1968. The patta of V. Bangarraju is not filed. However, in the Sale Deed dated 06.04.1960 executed by Bangarraju and his children in favour of Bhupathiraju Somaraju it was mentioned that schedule property was assigned to 1st vendor i.e., V. Bangarraju by the then Tahsildar as per the proceedings in Roc.No.E1/2474/50 dated 03.05.1950. Since such a mention was made long ago in the Sale Deed dated 06.04.1960 and as in the arguments of the Government Pleader he has not specifically disputed the factum of issuance of Patta in favour of Vegnesa Banganaju, but only argued that an extent of Ac.0.15 cents in R.S.No.883 alone was kept under the prohibitory list the assignment in favour of V.Bangarraju can be believed. The original assignee sold in favour of Bhupathiraju Somaraju from whom D.Srirama Raju, the father of petitioner, purchased. Since then the said property appears to be in possession of petitioner's family. The petitioner produced copy of Pattadar Passbook wherein his name is recorded in respect of Ac.3.04 cents of land in S.No.883. Considering all these facts, I hold that 5th respondent is not legally justified in refusing to register the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner's father in his favour. 11. The petitioner produced copy of Pattadar Passbook wherein his name is recorded in respect of Ac.3.04 cents of land in S.No.883. Considering all these facts, I hold that 5th respondent is not legally justified in refusing to register the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner's father in his favour. 11. The land in an extent of Ac.3.55 cents in S.No.902 is concerned, according to the petitioner, the said land was assigned to one Chodraju Lakshmipathi Raju in the year 1956 and he in turn sold the same in favour of Bhupathiraju Annapurnamma under a registered document No.711 dated 06.04.1960 and said Annapurnamma sold the said property in favour of Dhanthuluri Anasuyamma, the mother of petitioner. The assignment Patta is not filed, but a reference is made in the Sale Deed dated 06.04.1960 to the effect that the schedule property was assigned in favour of Ch. Lakshmipathi Raju as per proceedings in Roc.No.E-1/2474/1954 dated 03.05.1956. This property is concerned, learned Government Pleader admitted that it was assigned in favour of Ch. Lakshmipathi Raju in the year 1955 and in fact the representation of petitioner to delete the said land from the prohibitory list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act has been forwarded to the District Collector and same is pending. Having regard to these facts and the law which is discussed supra, the 5th respondent is not legally justified in rejecting to register the Sale Deed. 12. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and 5th respondent is directed to receive the Sale Deeds presented by the petitioner in respect of the property in an extent of Ac.3.04 cents out of Ac.5.04 cents in S.No.883 and Ac.3.55 cents in S.No.902 situated in Bondada Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District and register the same in favour of the petitioner, on his depositing necessary Stamp duty and registration fee as per law. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.