JUDGMENT : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) Heard Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, learned Special Government Pleader in the office of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Late Sri M. Madan Mohan Reddy, had been recognized as a freedom fighter and had been awarded a pension. After his demise, his wife Smt. D. Seethamma had sought assignment of land under the political sufferer quota. Acting on this request, the authorities had assigned Ac.1.46 cents of land in Sy.No.93/1 of Basinikonda Revenue Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, by way proceedings 31.07.2003. Smt. D. Seethamma sold away this land to the respondent herein, on 20.03.2004. After purchase of this land, the respondent sought deletion of this land from the list of prohibitory properties maintained under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908. This request was rejected by the 2nd appellant on the ground that the purchase of the land by the respondent from Smt. D. Seethamma was in violation of the conditions imposed in the assignment of the land to Smt. D. Seethamma and as such the land would have to be treated to be continued as assigned land and as such the land cannot be deleted from the prohibitory list. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.47042 of 2018, which was allowed by a Single Judge by order dated 20.02.2019 directing the appellants to receive and process the document which may be presented by the respondent for registration in respect of the subject land, if it is otherwise in order, and register the same without treating the land as inalienable assigned land. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants. 4. Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, learned Special Government pleader in the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants would contend that the assignment of land, in favour of the political sufferers, used to be granted initially with a condition of non-alienation, on par with assignment of land to landless poor persons. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.1743 dated 28.08.1959 had been issued by the Government stating that the Government had decided to permit political sufferers to sell away the land assigned to them without imposing any condition. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.1743 dated 28.08.1959 had been issued by the Government stating that the Government had decided to permit political sufferers to sell away the land assigned to them without imposing any condition. Thereafter, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.185, dated 11.03.1997, in which the earlier orders were modified disentitling the freedom fighters from alienating their lands. However, there was freedom for the spouses of such freedom fighters, who had passed away, to seek relaxation of this condition. He would also point out that the Government again issued G.O.Ms.No.1045 dated 15.12.2004 amending the conditions of assignment of land to freedom fighters whereby freedom fighters were free to sell the lands assigned to them after a period of 10 years. 5. Sri B. Sasibhushan Rao, would contend that the respondent had purchased the land from a person, who had been assigned the land under freedom fighter quota, within seven months after the land had been assigned and the purchase of the land itself is invalid and no rights would accrue to the respondent. He would submit that the decision to reject the application for deletion from the prohibitory list is correct and the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition. 6. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that Smt. D. Seethamma had initially been allotted Ac.1.70 cents of land out of which she had sold Ac.0.22 ½ cents of land to another purchaser, who had approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of W.P.No.25235 of 2012 seeking a declaration that the said land was a DKT patta land and cannot be deleted from the prohibitory list. This writ petition was allowed by an order dated 17.08.2012 permitting registration of the said land. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla would contend that in that view of the matter, there can be no differentiation in the treatment of the respondent herein with the writ petitioner in W.P.No.25235 of 2012. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla would rely upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P, reported in A. Venkatesan vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (3) ALT 333 wherein a learned Single Judge had set aside a similar Memo prohibiting transfer of land purchased from a political sufferer. 7. Sri Sita Ram Chaparla would rely upon a judgment of the erstwhile High Court of A.P, reported in A. Venkatesan vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2004 (3) ALT 333 wherein a learned Single Judge had set aside a similar Memo prohibiting transfer of land purchased from a political sufferer. 7. A conspectus of various Government Orders issued in relation to the conditions of alienation of the land assigned to the political sufferers would show that the political sufferers were free to sell the land assigned to them, without any condition, from 28.08.1959 till 11.03.1997. Thereafter, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.185, dated 11.03.1997, the political sufferers could not alienate the lands assigned to them. Only the spouses of freedom fighters, who had expired, had the facility of seeking relaxation of the said condition of non-alienation. This situation had been further changed on 15.12.2004 when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1045 stipulating that political sufferers can sell the land after 10 years of assignment of the land in their favour. 8. In the present case, the assignment in favour of Smt. D. Seethamma was done on 31.07.2003 while she sold it away in 20.03.2004, even before G.O.Ms.No.1045 had been issued. The law governing the conditions of alienation on 20.03.2004 was that the political sufferers could not alienate their lands. The subsequent amendment by way of G.O.Ms.No.1045 also does not assist the respondent as the said Government Order only relaxes the condition of non-alienation by fixing a term of 10 years during which the property could not be alienated. 9. In the present case, the land was sold within seven months of assignment. In such circumstances, the decision of the revenue authorities not to delete the subject land from the prohibitory list could not have been faulted. 10. Accordingly this writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.47042 of 2018 dated 20.02.2019. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.