JUDGMENT : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) 1. As the issues raised in all these writ appeals are one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. Land admeasuring Ac.4.61 cents, situated in Sy. No. 489/2 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, had been assigned to Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy and Sri. P. Vasudeva Reddy by the then Tahasildar, Chandragiri, under Board Standing Order No. 15. This land was sold by these two assignees. One Smt. K. Lalithamma purchased Ac.2.30½ cents vide document No. 3736/1976, dt.11.12.1976, and one Smt.Kamalamma, the grandmother of Sri. K.Hari Prasad, purchased the remaining Ac. 2.30½ cents vide document No. 3735/1976, dt.11.12.1976. At a later date, the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, issued proceedings, dated 10.09.2007, against Smt. K. Lalithamma and Sri K. Hari Prasad, under Section 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for resumption of the land. Under the orders of the Tahsildar, the land was resumed on the ground that, transfer of assigned land is prohibited under the provisions of the Act and any land so transferred can be resumed by the State. Aggrieved by the said order, the affected parties had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer by way of an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the affected parties also approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing a writ petition in W.P. No.2210 of 2009, apprehending dispossession. This writ petition was disposed of on 09.02.2009 with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer had thereafter passed an order, under the proceedings D.Dis.G/210/2008, dt.04.06.2011, setting aside the order of resumption and remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. The Tahsildar, after conducting a fresh enquiry and after considering the explanations submitted by the affected parties, had passed orders in R. Dis. No. (D) 720/2011, dt.20.06.2011, holding that the affected persons were landless persons who had purchased the land in good faith before the Act came into force and were therefore protected under Section 3(5) of the Act. After giving this finding, the Tahsildar restored the lands to Smt. K. Lalithamma and Sri K. Hari Prasad, the legal heir of Smt. Kamalamma, who had passed away in the meanwhile. After giving this finding, the Tahsildar restored the lands to Smt. K. Lalithamma and Sri K. Hari Prasad, the legal heir of Smt. Kamalamma, who had passed away in the meanwhile. Subsequently, the District Collector, Chittoor, by his letter dated 20.10.2018 had circulated the list of properties to the respective Sub-Registrars to place the said properties in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Aggrieved by the said inclusion of the aforesaid Ac.4.61 cents of land, W.P. No. 11848 of 2019 and W.P. No. 16818 of 2018 came to be filed by the writ petitioners therein. 3. The contention of the writ petitioners, in these writ petitions, was that the aforesaid land had been purchased by them from Smt K.Lalithamma and Sri K. Hari Prasad respectively, and that the said land cannot be placed in the prohibitory list by the District Collector. In both writ petitions, the petitioners sought a direction to the respective Sub-Registrars to receive documents presented by the respective petitioners for different extents of land and register the said documents. The petitioners also sought a direction to receive, register and release the documents they presented without relying upon the proposals of the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, which are said to have been sent on 13.07.2015. W.P. No.16818 of 2018 came to be allowed on 07.06.2019. Subsequently, W.P. No.11848 of 2019 was allowed on 04.12.2020 by applying the judgment passed in W.P. No.16818 of 2018. Aggrieved by the said judgments, the State is in appeal before this Court by way of filing W.A. No.490 of 2021, W.A. No.289 of 2021. 4. Another set of writ petitioners who had purchased the land from Smt. K.Lalithamma and Sri K. Hariprasad had approached this Court by filing W.P. No.7397 of 2021 seeking the same relief sought in the earlier writ petitions. During the hearing of this writ petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue had submitted that the petitioners could approach the District Collector to delete the properties from the prohibited list. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 16.07.2021, granting liberty to the petitioners therein to make an appropriate application through Mee seva for deletion of the list of properties from the prohibited list and with a direction to the respondents therein to make necessary enquiry therein and to pass necessary orders thereon. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 16.07.2021, granting liberty to the petitioners therein to make an appropriate application through Mee seva for deletion of the list of properties from the prohibited list and with a direction to the respondents therein to make necessary enquiry therein and to pass necessary orders thereon. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners in W.P. No. 7397 of 2021 have approached this Court by way of W.A. No. 596 of 2021. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General assails the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.16818 of 2018 and W.P. No.11848 of 2019. He would contend that though the learned single Judge had directed the registering authority to receive the documents without taking into account the orders of the District Collector dated 20.10.2018, including these properties in the prohibited list, the learned single Judge had not set aside the said order and consequently, the said order remains in force, and the writ petitioners cannot present documents while the said order remains in force. He would further submit that the correct course of action has already been set out in the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.07.2021 in W.P. No.7397 of 2021. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader would also contend that the affected parties, namely Smt.K.Lalithamma and Sri K.Hari Prasad had approached the authorities under the provisions of the Act for restoration of their right and title over the land. As such, the provisions of the Act would continue to apply and it would only be appropriate that the properties are retained under the prohibitory list and any removal of such properties would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. 7. Sri A.Giridhar Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A. No.289 of 2019 and Sri Subba Rao Korrapatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. No.596 of 2021 would contend that the findings of the Tahasildar in favour of Smt. K.Lalithamma and Sri K. Hariprasad that their right over the land is protected under Section 3(5) of the Act, would suffice to remove the lands from the ambit of the Act. Consequently, the said lands could not have been included in the prohibitory list and the orders of the learned single Judge directing the registering authorities to receive, register and release the documents relating to these lands without reference to the orders of the District Collector placing these lands under the prohibitory list cannot be objected. 8. Assignment of lands in the present State of Andhra Pradesh to landless poor persons is done under Board Standing Order No.15, which stipulates that such assigned lands cannot be alienated. The D-Form patta, which is given as the assignment deed, contains a condition of non-alienation. As there was no consequence for any alienation done, in contravention of such conditions, the legislature brought the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. This Act provided that any alienation of land, in contravention of the D-form patta conditions, would result in the land being resumed by the State and for reallocation of the land either to the original assignee or to be resumed for the benefit of the State. However, Section 3(5) of the Act also provided an exemption. Under this provision, any purchase of land by other landless poor persons before the Act came into force and, in good faith, was exempted from the rigours of the Act. 9. In the present case, the Tahsildar finds that the affected persons fall within the exemption under Section 3(5) of the Act. As a consequence of the exemption, the land would go out of the purview of the Act and become freehold land, which can be alienated to any subsequent purchasers or alienee in any other form. In view of the findings of the Tahsildar, which have become final. Any further enquiry would only burden the applicants. The same needs to be avoided. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.16818 of 2019 and in W.P. No.11848 of 2019 is confirmed and accordingly, W.A. Nos.289 of 2019 and 490 of 2021 are dismissed. 10. As far as the direction of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.7397 of 2021 is concerned, one of the methods of clarifying the situation would be for the affected parties to approach the District Collector for removal of the lands from the prohibitory list. However, as observed above, this would be a redundant exercise. 10. As far as the direction of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.7397 of 2021 is concerned, one of the methods of clarifying the situation would be for the affected parties to approach the District Collector for removal of the lands from the prohibitory list. However, as observed above, this would be a redundant exercise. In view of the categorical findings of the Tahsildar, the said order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No.7397 of 2021 is set aside and the appeal W.A. No.596 of 2021 is allowed, setting aside the proceedings Roc. No.F7/4495/2013, dt.20.10.2018, issued by the District Collector, including the land admeasuring Ac.4.61 cents in Sy. No.489/2 A & B of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. 11. Needless to say, any documents presented by the appellants, for registration, in relation to the aforesaid. 12. lands shall be received and release the documents subject to other requirements of law, without reference to any mention of these lands in the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ appeals shall stand closed.