ORDER : The grievance of the petitioners is inclusion of the subject property in the prohibitory properties list furnished under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 by the 2nd respondent and the consequential action of the respondent no.5 in refusing to entertain the sale deeds for registration in relation to the subject property by assigning Pending document P.Nos.348, 349 & 350 of 2023. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the land in an extent of Ac.0-92 cents in Survey No.54/1A, Ac.0-27 cents in Survey No.54/1C and Ac.50 cents in Survey No.54/2C of Buggaleti palle village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the subject property’) along with other extents of land was assigned in favour of Busireddy Veeramma, Busireddy Pedda Malla Reddy and Busireddy Nadipi Malla Reddy. The assignees mortgaged the subject property in favour of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa and obtained loan and as they did not repay, the Bank brought the subject property for sale by way of public auction under E.P.Nos.18, 19 & 20 of 2004-05. In the said auction, Gajjala Ranga Reddy, Pothuluru Eswar Reddy and Ponnolu Pulla Reddy became highest bidders and pursuantly the Bank issued sale confirmation letters in their favour and thereafter sale certificates in Form No.10, dated 01.03.2005 were issued under Sub-Rule 14(V) of Rule 52 of the A.P.Co-operative Society Rules, 1964. Eversince, they had been in possession and enjoyment of the property and in recognition of their title and possession, the revenue records had also been mutated. When they tried to alienate the property by presenting a document to registration, the Registering Authority refused to entertain the document stating that the subject property is entered as assigned land in his office records. Aggrieved thereby, they filed writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.33310, 33311 & 33315 of 2010 and this Court disposed of them on 29.12.2010, directing the respondents therein to consider the documents presented for registration without raising any objection to the effect that the subject land was originally an assigned land. Subsequently, they executed a power of attorney dated 13.02.2009 in favour of Gajjala Venkata Subba Reddy and inturn he sold the subject property in favour of the 4th petitioner. Subsequently, they executed a power of attorney dated 13.02.2009 in favour of Gajjala Venkata Subba Reddy and inturn he sold the subject property in favour of the 4th petitioner. When the 4th petitioner alienated the subject land in favour of the petitioner nos.1 to 3 and presented the documents dated 16.10.2023 for registration, the 5th respondent Registering Authority instead of registering the documents, assigned Pending Document Nos.348, 349 & 350 of 2023, dated 28.10.2023 and refused to complete the registration stating that the same was in Objection list of P.O.T./364/2016 under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. When the petitioners apprised the earlier orders of this Court directing the registering authority not to raise any objection to the effect that the subject land was originally an assigned land, the 5th respondent stating that the said orders are of the year 2010, required the petitioners to obtain fresh orders. The action of the 2nd respondent in continuing the property in prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1)(a) and consequential action of the 5th respondent in assigning pending document numbers. to the sale deeds presented by the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law laid down in the decision in Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District vs. K.Guravaiah, 2009(2) ALD 250 . Therefore, this writ petition is filed praying to declare the said actions being illegal and arbitrary and direct the registering authority to register and release the pending document numbers by setting aside the prohibitory lands list under section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. 3. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition inter alia contending that, as per the available records, the land in Survey No.54/1 to an extent of Ac.5.13 cents of Buggaletipalli village of C.K.Dine Mandal was assigned in favour of Busireddy Malla Reddy, Son of Mallaiah, vide DKT No.432/1370, dated 28.03.1962 and as the said land is an assigned land, the then District Collector instructed the then District Registrar, Kadapa to notify the said land under Section 22A(1)(a) list of Registration Act, 1908. The respondents are ignorant of the contentions regarding mortgage of the said assigned land in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa, default of loan and subsequent sale in auction of the mortgaged assigned land and issue of sale certificates in Form-10 and the respondents were never informed of the same. The respondents are ignorant of the contentions regarding mortgage of the said assigned land in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa, default of loan and subsequent sale in auction of the mortgaged assigned land and issue of sale certificates in Form-10 and the respondents were never informed of the same. Form-10 sale confirmation certificates shows that one Gajjala Ranga Reddy purchased an extent of Ac.0-82 cents in Survey No.54/1 and an extent of Ac.1.59 cents in Survey No.54/2 in Buggaletipalli village of C.K.Dinne Mandal and another extent of Ac.0-57 cents situated in Survey No.3/1C of Jamalpalli village. Further, Sri Pothuluru Eswar Reddy seems to have purchased lands to an extent of Ac.3.22 cents in Survey No.54/1C and Ac.0-50 cents in Survey No.54/2C of the same village and an extent of Ac.0-80 cents in Survey No.3/1C of Jamalpalle village from Smt. Busireddy Veeramma, W/o. Kunti Malla Reddy. It is the further case of the 2nd respondent that on verification of FMB it revealed that the total extent of land is Ac.10.26 cents, which was sub-divided as Survey No.54/1 to an extent of Ac.5.13 cents and Survey No.54/2 to an extent of Ac.5.13 cents. Further, on verification of DKT record, it reveals that one Sri Basireddy Malla Reddy was assigned an extent of Ac.5.13 cents in Survey No.54/1. The said survey number is one single block and it was sub divided as 54/1 and 54/2 and there are no further sub-divisions. After death of original assignee, the names of his wife and two sons are reflecting in the webland adangal of 2024. The survey No.54/1 to an extent of Ac.5.13 cents was under the enjoyment of legal heirs of original assignee without any sub divisions. However the names of legal heirs of original assignee were kept in the Survey No.54/2 also mistakenly. The legal heirs of Malla Reddy have no right to mortgage land in survey No.54/2. The sub divisions mentioned in the sale certificates are not known to the revenue authorities. The lands in Survey No.54/2 and 3/1C were never assigned to Busireddy Malla Reddy. The persons, who purchased the land in auction shall approach the revenue authorities by submitting sale certificates issued by the Co-operative central bank for seeking incorporation of their names, in the record of rights. The auction purchasers never approached the revenue authorities and did not submit any sale certificate. The persons, who purchased the land in auction shall approach the revenue authorities by submitting sale certificates issued by the Co-operative central bank for seeking incorporation of their names, in the record of rights. The auction purchasers never approached the revenue authorities and did not submit any sale certificate. As of now the petitioners have not filed any application for mutation and the petitioners have alternative effective remedy but without availing the same and defying the principles of vertical jurisprudence, they directly invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 2nd respondent also filed additional counter and while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit earlier filed, further contended that as seen from From-10 certificates, two individuals have purchased the lands as follows: Sl.No. Name of the individual Lands purchased in public auction conducted by D.C.C.B. 01 Sri Gujjala Ranga Reddy Sy.No.54/1, extent 0.85 acres Sy.No.54/2, extent 1.59 acres Sy.No.3/C, extent 0.57 acres 02 Sri Pathalur Eswar Reddy Sy.No.54/1C, extent 3.22 acres Sy.No.54/2C, extent 0.50 acres Sy.No.3/1C, extent 0.80 acres Except an extent of Ac.5.13 cents of Buggalapalli village of C.K.Dinne Mandal, no other extent of land including Survey No.54/2 and 3/1C was assigned to anybody and remains as Government lands. As verified from the office records, no DKT records are found with regard to grant of assignment to the lands in Survey No.54/2 and 3/1C to Basireddy Mallareddy. However, the District Co-operative Bank auctioned the schedule land and purchased by the above individuals, without any basis. As such, the said transaction is illegal and non est in the eye of law. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. 6. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration would submit that the lands which are initially assigned but subsequently sold in the execution proceedings obtained by the Primary Agricultural Societies, will lose the character of assigned lands and thereafter they cannot be continued in the list of prohibited properties under Section 22- A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908, as per the law laid down by this Court in Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah (supra 1). Despite the same, the subject properties which were sold in public auction in execution proceedings by District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa were continued in the prohibited list and the 5th respondent registering authority declined to receive and process the sale deeds submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 29.12.2010 passed in writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.33310, 33311 & 33315 of 2010 directing the registering authorities to register the document in relation to subject land without raising any objection to the effect that the subject land was originally assigned land; the auction purchasers of the subject property executed GPA and the GPA holder sold the property to the 4th petitioner. However, when the 4th petitioner tried to alienate the subject property in favour of the petitioners, the 5th respondent-registering authority had again taken similar objections. In view of the orders passed in the writ petitions referred to supra, the registering authorities are estopped from taking similar objection to the effect that the subject property originally was assigned land. Therefore, the inclusion of property by 2nd respondent in prohibited properties list and consequential refusal of the 5th respondent in refusing to entertain the sale deeds by assigning pending documents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the land laid down in the decision reported in 2009(2) ALD 250 . Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions in Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District and another (supra 1) and N.Raja Reddy and others vs. The Sub Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District and others, 2007(5) ALD 845 . 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit further contended that an extent of Ac.5-13cents in Survey No.54/1 only was assigned to the predecessor-in-title of the mortgagors. Whereas, the Form-10 sale confirmation certificates filed along with the writ petition shows purchase of properties covered under Survey No.54/2 and 3/1C,which were never assigned to the predecessor-in-title of the mortgagors. The L.Rs. Whereas, the Form-10 sale confirmation certificates filed along with the writ petition shows purchase of properties covered under Survey No.54/2 and 3/1C,which were never assigned to the predecessor-in-title of the mortgagors. The L.Rs. of the original assignees have no right or title over the extent of the lands covered under Survey No.54/2 and 3/1C and therefore, the Bank has no right to auction those properties, which were not assigned, and thus the sale confirmation certificates do not either create any right or confer any title to the petitioners over the properties that were not covered by the assignment granted to the predecessor-in-title of the mortgagors. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the revenue authorities were never informed of mortgaging the property for obtaining loan, default in payment of loan, auction of the property by the Bank and purchase of the land by the auction purchasers and further the auction purchasers had never submitted the Form-10 Sale confirmation certificates before the authorities seeking mutation of the land in their favour. Therefore, the District Collector, since the land in Survey No.54/1 was an assigned land, had submitted proposals for inclusion of the land in prohibited properties list under Section 22A of the Registration Act. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. 8. The material available on record would indicate that the 4th petitioner purchased the subject property under registered sale deed dated 21.05.2011 and she sold the property in favour of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 under separate sale deeds dated 16.10.2023 and when the said sale deeds were presented for registration, the 5th respondent assigned pending document Nos. 348, 349 & 350 of 2023, dated 28.10.2023. Thereafter, vide intimation of Refusal order Nos.58,59 & 60/2023 Kadapa(Rural)/Refusal no.P.Nos.348,349 & 350/2023, dated 28.10.2023, registration of the document P.Nos.348, 349 & 350 of 2023 are refused by the 5th respondent Registering Authority. Reasons for refusal for three Pending Documents run similar. For sake of convenience the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder: “The property was included in the list of prohibited property under P.O.T./364/2016 by District Collector Under Section 22-A(1)(A) Assigned Land of Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the document is refused. The Joint Sub Registrar, Kadapa Rural is herewith refused the registration of the Pending Document No. as per the list communicated by the P.O.T./364/2016 by District Collector Under Section 22-A(1)(A). Hence, the document is refused. The Joint Sub Registrar, Kadapa Rural is herewith refused the registration of the Pending Document No. as per the list communicated by the P.O.T./364/2016 by District Collector Under Section 22-A(1)(A). Objection list of P.O.T/346/2016 Assigned Land. Accordingly registration of the Document is refused.” 9. A perusal of the communication vide Ref.No.POT/364/2016, dated 10.03.2018 sent by District Collector, YSR District, Kadapa to the District Registrar, Stamps & Registration Department, Kadapa, which was filed along with counter of 2nd respondent shows that in light of the judgment dated 23.12.2015 of this Court in W.A.Nos.232/2012, 352/2013 and 1063/2013 and batch cases, revised prohibitory property lists were prepared and the Revised prohibited properties lists prepared under Section 22-A(1)(a) to (e) of Registration Act were communicated thereunder for taking necessary action. The same reads as follows: “In invite your attention to the references cited and to inform that, the Government and Chief commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada in the references 2nd, 6th and 7th cited have instructed the District Collectors in the State to re-verify the prohibited property lists prepared under Section 22A(1)(a) to (e) thoroughly and furnish the revised lists of 22A(1)(a) to (d) to the Registration Department and revised proposals to the Government under (3) for re-publication in State Gazette. In view of the above, I am herewith sending the revised prohibited property lists prepared U/s 22 A(1)(a), 22 A(1)(b) and 22 A (1)(d) of Registration Act, 1908 for taking further necessary action and also informed that the lists now furnished shall supersede all the lists furnished earlier.” Annexure-I appended to the said correspondence, entitled Proforma for Furnishing Details of Properties Under Section22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 for prohibition in respect of Bugaleti Palli village, C.K.Dinne Mandal features the land in an extent of Ac.5-13 cents in Survey No.54/1 of the said village. Name of the Assignee/Allottee/Owner column shows ‘Busireddy Nadipi Mallareddy, Son of Mallaiah’. 10. Name of the Assignee/Allottee/Owner column shows ‘Busireddy Nadipi Mallareddy, Son of Mallaiah’. 10. The record would further indicate that Form No.10- Certificate of sale under Sub Rule 14(V) of Rule 52 of the A.P.Cooperative Society Rules, 1964 were issued in favour of Sri Gajjala Ranga Reddy for an extent of Ac.0- 82 cents in Survey No.54/1, Ac.0.57 cents in Survey No. 3/1C and Ac.1.59 cents in Survey No.54/2 and in favour of Sri Pothluru Eswar Reddy for an extent of Ac.3-22 cents in Survey No.54-1C and Ac.3-22 cents, Ac.0-50 cents in Survey No.54-2C and Ac.0.80 cents in Survey No.3/1C, by the Deputy Registrar/Office on Special Duty, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Cuddapah. The Form-10-certificates of sale shows that the above two persons purchased the respective property at a public auction held by one of the Supervisor/Sale Officer, Cuddapah District Cooperatie Central Bank Limited, Cuddapah, sold for arrears due to the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, R.K.Nagar Branch, Kolumulapalli PACS by Busireddy Nadipi Malla Reddy and Busireddi Veeramma, in Execution Award Nos. 127 & 1715/2003- 2004. 11. The sale deeds covered under intimation of Refusal order Nos.58,59 & 60/2023 Kadapa(Rural)/Refusal no.P.Nos.348,349 & 350/2023, dated 28.10.2023 show that the auction purchasers Pothuluru Eswar Reddy, Ponnavolu Pulla Reddy and Gajjala Ranga Reddy executed a General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2009 in favour of G.Venkata Subba Reddy. Subsequent thereto, the said General Power of Attorney Holder-G. Venkata Subba Reddy sold the property to the 4th petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 21.05.2011 registered as document No.3497 of 2011. 12. The record would further disclose that as the Registering authorities refused to entertain sale deeds in respect of the subject properties, the auction purchasers filed writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.33310, 33311 and 33315 of 2010 and this Court disposed of those writ petitions on 29.12.2010 directing the respondents therein to consider the documents presented by the petitioners therein in respect of the subject properties without raising any objection to the effect that the said land was originally an assigned land. The relevant portion of the said judgments is extracted hereunder, for sake of convenience. “3. The land in question is purchased by the petitioner in the execution proceedings pursuant to execution of the decree obtained by a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. The relevant portion of the said judgments is extracted hereunder, for sake of convenience. “3. The land in question is purchased by the petitioner in the execution proceedings pursuant to execution of the decree obtained by a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. In such sales, whether the lands will lose the character of assigned lands for the purpose of prohibiting registration is a matter which was considered by this Court and decided in favour of the purchasers, holding that there cannot be any objection to prohibit registration of the lands, which are initially by the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies. 4. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is submitted by learned counsel for he petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah (2009(2)ALD 250(DB)) 5. In that view of the matter, following the aforesaid judgment of this Court, this writ petition is disposed of, at the admission stage, with a direction to the respondent that in case the petitioner presents the document for registration of the land, the same shall be considered without raising any objection to the effect that the said land was originally an assigned land. However, it is made clear that the registration shall be done, provided the document presented is in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Registration Act, 1908. No order as to costs.” 13. In Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah (supra 1) Division Bench of this Court held thus: “13. For the purpose of deciding the case, one has to look at the definition of 'assigned land'. The term has been defined under Section 2 (1) of the Assigned Lands Act and the same reads as under: 2. Definitions: 1) "assigned land" means lands assigned by the Government to the landless poor persons under the rules for the time being in force, subject to the condition of non-alienation and includes lands allotted or transferred to landless poor persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to land ceilings; and the word "assigned" shall be construed accordingly. Explanation:- A mortgage in favour of the following shall not be regarded as an alienation, namely:- 1) the Central Government, or the State Government or any local authority; 2) any co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964; and 3) any bank which includes:- a) the Agricultural Development Bank; b) the Reserve Bank of India constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Ct, 1934; c) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; d) a subsidiary bank as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; and e) a corresponding new bank constituted under Section 3 of the Bank Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970; 14. One has also to see whether the mortgage created in favour of the bank by the original assignee of the land was just, proper and legal. The assignee of the land can raise money by mortgaging the land so as to develop the land or to do some other better financial activity. At the same time, to see that unscrupulous elements do not lend money to the poor assignees so as to have the assigned land transferred in their favour, the mortgage executed in favour of the authorities enumerated in the explanation was not to be treated as 'alienation'. When mortgage in favour of a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is not treated as alienation, in our opinion, mortgage executed in favour of the bank by the original assignee would be absolutely just and legal. 15. Thus, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that the original assignee of the lands in question had mortgaged the land in favour of the bank in an absolutely lawful manner. The afore-stated fact has not been disputed anywhere in the entire proceedings. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the original assignees were authorized to mortgage the assigned lands in favour of the bank because the bank is a co-operative society under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. 16. Once it is held that the mortgage was legal and valid, then one has to look at the natural consequences which would follow when the mortgage money is not repaid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. 16. Once it is held that the mortgage was legal and valid, then one has to look at the natural consequences which would follow when the mortgage money is not repaid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. The term 'mortgage' has been defined under Section 58 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads as under: 58. "Mortgage", "mortgagor", "mortgagee", "mortgage-money" and "mortgaged" defined. (a) A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability. The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgagee; the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed. ... ... ... 17. Thus, when the property is mortgaged, interest in the property is transferred by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. If the mortgage money is not repaid, the consequences provided in the Transfer of Property Act would naturally follow. We need not go in detail about the same because it is not in dispute that the mortgage money was not paid by the original assignee of the assigned lands to the bank and, therefore, the bank had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The bank ultimately obtained recovery certificate under the provisions of section 71 of the afore-stated Act and after following legal procedure, the lands in question were put to auction and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was the highest bidder and ultimately, the assigned lands were sold to him. The sale executed in favour of the petitioner was confirmed and a sale-deed had been executed. If the property in the assigned land had been transferred to the petitioner, the revenue record must be completed accordingly by showing the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question.” 14. Further the other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in N.Raja Reddy and others (supra 2), a learned single judge of this Court held thus: “7. The Act prohibits alienation of assigned lands. Further the other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in N.Raja Reddy and others (supra 2), a learned single judge of this Court held thus: “7. The Act prohibits alienation of assigned lands. While Section 3 renders all categories of transfers of assigned land, as void ab initio, Section 5 prohibits the registration of any document, evidencing such transfers. Any sale or transfer, in contravention of the provisions of the Act, cannot change the character of land, and the objection can be raised at any point of time. Successive transactions, which are otherwise prohibited, do not bring about any change as to the legal implications. 8. The Legislature, however, carved out an exception as regards the prohibition imposed under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. Section 6 reads as under: Section 6: Nothing in this Act shall apply to the assigned lands held on mortgage by the State or Central Government, any local authority, a Co-operative Society, a Scheduled Bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by a State Government or the Central Government, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf. 9. From a reading of this provision, it is evident that if the transfer by way of mortgage is in favour of a State or Central Government, any Local Authority, a Cooperative Society, or a Scheduled Bank, or any financial institution, controlled or managed by State or Central Governments, the provisions of the Act do not apply. 10. The record discloses that the lands assigned in favour of various beneficiaries, referred to in the table, were mortgaged in favour of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies, as security for repayment of loans. In view of the default committed by the borrowers, steps were taken to foreclose the mortgages. Sale Certificates under Section 71 of the A.P.C.S. Act were obtained and further steps were taken. In the ultimate analysis, the petitioners emerged as the successful bidders and the competent authority affirmed the sales, in favour of the petitioners. Revenue records are also mutated, correspondingly. 11. In B. Ramaiah's case ((1990(1)ALT 290), the land assigned to a beneficiary was mortgaged in favour of an Agricultural Development Bank. Even while the mortgage was subsisting, the assignee sold the land to third parties. When steps were initiated under the Act, transferee claimed exemption under Section 6 of the Act. Revenue records are also mutated, correspondingly. 11. In B. Ramaiah's case ((1990(1)ALT 290), the land assigned to a beneficiary was mortgaged in favour of an Agricultural Development Bank. Even while the mortgage was subsisting, the assignee sold the land to third parties. When steps were initiated under the Act, transferee claimed exemption under Section 6 of the Act. Extensive discussion was undertaken, and the provisions of the Act were analyzed. The Division Bench of this Court held that, mere existence of mortgage does not enable the assignee, to sell the land to third parties. It was pointed out that the benefit under Section 6 of the Act enures to the Co-operative Society, in whose favour, the land was mortgaged. 12. The facts of the present case are different. The petitioners are transferees from the Society, in whose favour the lands were mortgaged. Once the mortgage in favour of the Co-operative Society is exempted, the other consequential steps taken for, foreclosure of the same, would also stand exempted. The net result is that, if an assigned land comes to be sold, in pursuance of a mortgage, which is exempted under Section 6, it looses the characteristics of assigned land, and the exemption continues to be available to the purchasers from the Society or financial institutions, as the case may be. 13. The ratio in Harijana Bazarappa's case ( 2004(1) ALD 284 (2)), has no application to the facts of this case. The prohibition contained in Section 3 of the Act, was reiterated and the exemption under Section 6 of the Act was, neither claimed, nor was dealt with. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, and it is directed that the properties purchased by the petitioners, in the sales conducted by the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Chittoor, shall not be treated as assigned lands, and the documents presented for transfer, shall be entertained by the 1st respondent, and processed, in accordance with law.” 15. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, and it is directed that the properties purchased by the petitioners, in the sales conducted by the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Chittoor, shall not be treated as assigned lands, and the documents presented for transfer, shall be entertained by the 1st respondent, and processed, in accordance with law.” 15. The observations made in the above referred judgments make the things clear that if an assigned land comes to be sold, in pursuance of a mortgage held by the State or Central government, any local authority, a cooperative society, a scheduled bank or such other financial institution owned, controlled or managed by the State Government or the Central Government, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf, it loses the characteristics of assigned land, and the exemption continues to be available to the purchasers from the society or financial institutions, as the case may be. 16. In the instant case, admittedly, the assigned property that was mortgaged to District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kadapa was purchased by the principals of the GPA Holder, who sold the property to the 4th petitioner. As held above, the said property loses its characteristics of assigned land. This Court, in the writ petitions filed by the auction purchasers of the subject land in the auction conducted by the Cooperative Bank held to the same effect and directed the Registering Authorities not to raise any objection to the effect that the land covered under the sale deeds was originally an assigned land. Accordingly, sale deeds were registered in favour of the 4th petitioner. 17. No doubt, when the assigned land loses its characteristic the same continues thenceforth and the same becomes free hold land. Therefore, the registering authorities cannot raise any objection to the effect that the land originally an assigned land. Accordingly, sale deeds were registered in favour of the 4th petitioner. 17. No doubt, when the assigned land loses its characteristic the same continues thenceforth and the same becomes free hold land. Therefore, the registering authorities cannot raise any objection to the effect that the land originally an assigned land. In this view of the matter, the action of the 5th respondent in assigning pending Document numbers to the sale deeds presented for registration and the refusal orders passed by it on the ground that the property was included in the list of prohibited property under P.O.T./364/2016 by District Collector is not tenable, since this Court, on the earlier occasion, vide its orders dated 29.12.2010 passed in Writ Petitions vide W.P.Nos.33310, 33311 & 33315 of 2010 had cleared the cloud and clearly held that the subject land having been purchased in execution proceedings pursuant to execution of decree obtained by a Primary Agricultural cooperative society, the same loses its characteristic of assigned land. 18. However, it is relevant here to note the specific contention raised by the 2nd respondent that the predecessor-in-title viz., Basireddy Malla Reddy was assigned an extent of Ac.5-13 cents of land in Survey No.54/1 alone and the land in Survey Nos.54/2 and 3/1C was never assigned to anybody. Therefore, the legal heirs of the original assignee i.e. the mortgagors of the land to Cooperative Central Bank have no right and authority to create mortgage over the properties situated in Survey No.54/2 and Survey No.3/1C. According to the respondents, without any basis, the names of the legal heirs of the original assignee were entered in revenue records in respect of an extent of Ac.5-13 cents of land in Survey No.54/2 and taking advantage of the said false entry, without any manner of right they seems to have mortgaged the property situated in Survey No.54/2 also to the bank. 19. The adangals for the fasli 1433 relating to the corresponding year 2023 filed along with the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent shows that the names of the legal heirs of the original assignee i.e. the mortgagors of the property were shown as pattadars as well as posessors of an extent of Ac.5.13 cents of land in Survey No.54/2 of the subject village and the nature of possession is shown as D.K.T.patta. No reasonable or legally acceptable explanation was given by the revenue authorities as to how their names were entered in the revenue records maintained by the authorities without actually assigning the land to them, except stating in the counter that their names were entered without any basis. 20. Moreover, when the writ petition nos. 33310, 33311 & 33315 of 2010 came up for consideration in relation to the subject properties, the revenue authorities did not take any similar objection. The relevant portion of the orders extracted above would only indicate that when the matter is taken up for consideration, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District v. K.Guravaiah (2009(2)ALD 250(DB)). The reason for not bringing it to the notice of the Court in the earlier round of litigation regarding the fact that part of the properties covered under the subject sale deeds were not actually assigned to the mortgagors of the properties to the Bank. Further, the said orders were not challenged in appeal and no petition for reviewing the orders was filed and thus the said orders have attained finality. Further, the authorities did not choose to rectify the mistake credit in the revenue records. 21. In the absence of any material as to what was actually assigned to the original assignee and the documents that were deposited by the legal heirs of the original assignees with the bank at the time of availing loan facility and to how the bank officials could satisfy themselves that the properties mortgaged to the bank were assigned to the predecessors-in-title of the mortgagors, this Court cannot any express any opinion on the contentious issue put forward by the revenue authorities for the first time. 22. 22. However, considering the facts that the revenue authorities did not offer any resistance in the earlier writ petitions in relation to the same subject property stating that some of the properties were not assigned to the mortgagors; the revenue records reflect the names of the mortgagors as assignees of the land in Survey No.54/2 and the Bank having satisfied with the right and title of the mortgagors over the property had advanced loan creating mortgage over the subject properties; in the absence of any material to the contrary produced by respondents; this Court is of the considered opinion that inclusion of the subject properties covered under the sale deeds in prohibitory properties list under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act is illegal and contrary to the law laid down in the decision reported in 2009(2) ALD 250 . Consequently, the refusal orders passed by the 5th respondent refusing to receive the documents that were assigned pending Document Nos.348, 349 & 350 of 2023 on the ground that they were assigned lands, are illegal and arbitrary besides contrary to the law laid down in the decision referred to above. 23. In the above view of the matter, it is left open to the revenue authorities to approach appropriate authority to agitate their claim that the properties covered under Survey Nos.54/2 and 3/1C of the subject village were never assigned to the mortgagors. It is relevant here to note that one cannot convey better title than what he had. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the 2nd respondent to denotify the subject lands i.e. Ac.0-92 cents in Sy.No.54/1A, Ac.0-27 cents in Survey No.54/1C and Ac.0-50 cents in Survey No.54/2C of Buggaletipalle village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District from prohibitory lands list and further the 5th respondent is directed to register the pending document P.Nos.348,349 & 350 of 2023, if otherwise in order, other than the objection that the lands covered therein were originally assigned lands. It is left open to the revenue authorities to initiate proceedings, if they desire, in relation to the properties which according to them were not assigned to the mortgagors. It is made clear that the petitioners cannot claim any equity by virtue of these orders in the proceedings if any initiated by the revenue authorities. There shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the petitioners cannot claim any equity by virtue of these orders in the proceedings if any initiated by the revenue authorities. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.