ORDER : Subba Reddy Satti, J. The Writ Petition is filed impugning the order passed by 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.72/2022/L3 dated 21.07.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to orders passed in W.P.No.5924 of 2018 dated 25.03.2022 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to delete the land of an extent of Ac.4.72 cents in S.No.359/2 of Desaputrunipalem village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli District from the list of prohibited properties Sec 22-A of the Registration Act. 2. a) Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner joined Indian Air Force as Airman in the year 1975 and took retirement on 31.08.1990 as Sergeant. After retirement, petitioner made a representation for assignment of agricultural land under Ex- serviceman quota. After enquiry, an extent of Ac.4.72 cents in S.No.359/2 at Desapatruni Palem village, Parawada Mandal was assigned vide Dr.No.73/1420A dated 25.01.1993. Petitioner's name was entered in revenue records and the authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed. b) Petitioner made an application on 24.08.2007 to respondents 2 to 4 to issue No Objection Certificate to alienate the assigned land. The District Collector called for report and the Tahsildar submitted report to the Revenue Divisional Officer vide Rc.No.56/08/SA dated 17.03.2008. Thereafter the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar to forward the record and the same was submitted by the Tahsildar vide Rc.No.56/09/SA dated 28.07.2009. Since No Objection Certificate was not issued, the petitioner W.P.No.21745 of 2012 and the same was disposed of on 18.07.2012. c) The petitioner executed a gift deed dated 27.06.2013 in favour of his son and presented it for registration before the Sub Registrar, Lankelapalem. The Sub Registrar gave pending registration No.P/110/2013. Petitioner made a representation to the Sub Registrar to release the pending document. As the matter stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.279 Revenue (Assn.1) Department dated 04.07.2016. Pursuant to said G.O., petitioner made a representation dated 05.08.2016 and thereafter filed W.P.No.43730 of 2017 and the same was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. d) The District Collector issued an endorsement vide R.Dis.No.4687/2007/E1 dated--12.2027 and rejected the claim of petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5924 of 2018 and the same was disposed of on 25.03.2022 declaring the endorsement of the District Collector as illegal. d) The District Collector issued an endorsement vide R.Dis.No.4687/2007/E1 dated--12.2027 and rejected the claim of petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P.No.5924 of 2018 and the same was disposed of on 25.03.2022 declaring the endorsement of the District Collector as illegal. The District Collector was directed to verify the file relating to issue of patta to the petitioner in Dr.No.732/1402A dated 25.01.1993 and consider the report of 4th respondent-Tahsildar and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. Thereafter, the District Collector passed the order, impugned, in the writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 2nd respondent- District Collector. It was contended, inter alia, that pursuant to the application made by the petitioner seeking no objection for alienation of subject land, the then Tahsildar submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. It was mentioned that DR file was not traced. As per the report of the Zilla Sainik Welfare Board, the petitioner is genuine Ex-serviceman. Pursuant to order in W.P.No.21745 of 2012, a letter was addressed by the then Tahsildar, Parawada to the Sub Registrar, Lankelapalem for taking necessary action. The District Collector issued an endorsement vide R.Dis.No.4687/2007/E1 dated 17.01.2018 stating that though petitioner's claim as Ex- Serviceman appears to be genuine, but the proof of assignment in the category of Ex-Serviceman is not available. Pursuant to order in W.P.No.5924 of 2018, the District Collector called for report and passed the order impugned in the writ petition and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. 5th Respondent-Sub Registrar filed separate counter affidavit. 5. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri K.D.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps & Registration for 5th respondents. 6. Learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that by passing order impugned in the writ petition, the District Collector sits over the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5924 of 2018. He would also submit that in the absence of any dispute regarding status of petitioner as an Ex-Serviceman, the District Collector ought to have issued orders to delete the property from the list of prohibitory mentioned under Section 22A of the Registration Act. Learned senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to the observations made in W.P.No.5924 of 2018. Learned senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to the observations made in W.P.No.5924 of 2018. He would submit that there is no dispute regarding mutation of petitioner's name in revenue records. The non-availability of revenue record, the petitioner cannot be denied of his right to enjoy the property by deleting the same from 22-A list. By placing reliance upon the circular instructions issued by CCLA vide Lr.No.Assn.I(1)/350/2022 dated 04.05.2022, he would submit that even in case if file does not exist, the Collector can ask the Ex-Serviceman to provide the record of assignment and basing on the existing record, the District Collector can decide the issue. Eventually, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the DR file relating to grant of assignment in favour of petitioner is not available. He would also submit that the relevant page pertaining to issuance of assignment in the name of petitioner and 10 (1) is found missing. He would also submit that the relevant page pertaining to issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of petitioner is found missing. However, he did not dispute the status of the petitioner as ex-service man. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Now, the points of consideration are: 1) Whether by the order, impugned in the writ petition, the 2nd respondent sits over the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5924 of 2018? If so, the order impugned is liable to be set aside? 2) Whether the property claimed by the petitioner is to be deleted from prohibited list of properties under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act? 9. Admittedly, petitioner filed W.P.No.5924 of 2018 challenging the endorsement issued by the District Collector vide R.Dis.o.4687/2007/E1 dated 17.01.2008 refusing to de-notify the assigned land from the prohibited list under 22-A list. Learned single Judge while disposing of W.P.No.5924 of 2018 recorded the following findings: "However, it is evident from record that patta was issued in favour of this petitioner in DR.No.73/1402A dated 25.01.1993. The file relating to issuing of patta expected to be available in Tahsildar office. Thus, it means patta was granted to the petitioner under Ex-Servicemen quota but not under landless poor category." "On verifying the entire record in DR.No.73/1402A dated 25.01.1993, the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal and self-contradictory, hence the same is hereby declared as illegal and arbitrary". 10. Thus, it means patta was granted to the petitioner under Ex-Servicemen quota but not under landless poor category." "On verifying the entire record in DR.No.73/1402A dated 25.01.1993, the endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal and self-contradictory, hence the same is hereby declared as illegal and arbitrary". 10. After the order passed in W.P.No.5924 of 2018, the 2nd respondent, once again, called for report from the Tahsildar. In the report of Tahsildar, regarding ex-serviceman status of assignee, it was mentioned that the applicant is an ex-serviceman as it is proved beyond doubt as seen from the Pension Certificate, ID Card etc. Regarding genuineness of assignment, it was mentioned that since the original D.R file is not available, the Tahsildar and RDO have considered the secondary evidences like issuance of pattadar pass book vide PPB No.C-457418 (Khata No.432) in favour of applicant. In 10(1) register, the name of petitioner in Form-iii (assignees list) and availability of name in some of the V.A.No.Adangals were also taken note. 11. In fact, the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer recommended for deletion of subject land from the list maintained under Section 22-A. 12. In the report, it seems, it was also mentioned that the relevant pages in 10(1) Register and ROR 1-B manual register said to have containing the entries of subject land pertaining to applicant were found missing. The said remark was considered as one of the grounds or, in fact, main ground on which the learned District Collector rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that 4th respondent-Tahsildar is custodian of revenue records viz., DR file, Adangal, RoR-IB etc. If the record is not available in its office, the Tahsildar concerned should have conducted an enquiry. However, without such an effort, in spite of recommendation, the District Collector, declined to grant relief. 14. It is not the case of the authorities that the copy of the patta produced by the petitioner is fabricated or forged. No one disputed the genuineness of the said patta. In the absence of any finding regarding fabrication of assignment patta, the District Collector should have ordered deletion of property from Section 22-A list. Instead, the 2nd respondent-District Collector placed reliance upon non-availability of DR File and missing of relevant pages and declined the relief sought for by the petitioner. No one disputed the genuineness of the said patta. In the absence of any finding regarding fabrication of assignment patta, the District Collector should have ordered deletion of property from Section 22-A list. Instead, the 2nd respondent-District Collector placed reliance upon non-availability of DR File and missing of relevant pages and declined the relief sought for by the petitioner. Indeed, the 2nd respondent failed to consider the relevant record available and hence, the order is illegal and hence, liable to be set aside. 15. In fact, as discussed supra, the reports of the Tahsildar is clear regarding status of petitioner as ex-serviceman and issuance of pattdar passbook and title deed in favour of petitioner and other revenue records. 16. In W.P.No.5924 of 2018, it was pointed out that the District Collector invented a dispute to come out of 6 (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.279. In fact, learned single Judge concluded that the order impugned in W.P.No.5924 of 2018 is illegal and self-contradictory and hence directed the District Collector to verify the file relating to issue of patta in favour of the petitioner and consider the report of the Tahsildar and pass appropriate orders. Notwithstanding the said order, the 2nd respondent called for report another, and the report submitted by the Tahsildar does not dispute status of petitioner as ex-serviceman and the assignment made in favour of petitioner. 17. The instructions issued by CCLA vide circular dated 04.05.2022 are binding on the 2nd respondent. A clarification was issued by CCLA would disclose that, the District Collector needs to verify (a) if the assignee is truly an ex-serviceman and (b) the assignment was genuine. If these two facts are established the assignee i.e. ex-serviceman is allowed to sell the land after 10 years from the date of assignment. In case of file missing, it was clarified that even if the file does not exist, the Collector can ask the ex-serviceman to provide evidence of assignment. The District Collector shall cross verify with the existing record and decide upon veracity of papers submitted. Any land assignment to an ex-serviceman shall be treated not as assignment to a landless poor person, irrespective of what is stated in the DR file. An ex-serviceman is entitled to sell land assigned to him, ten years after date of assignment, whatever the description in any revenue record. 18. Any land assignment to an ex-serviceman shall be treated not as assignment to a landless poor person, irrespective of what is stated in the DR file. An ex-serviceman is entitled to sell land assigned to him, ten years after date of assignment, whatever the description in any revenue record. 18. Case at hand, as discussed supra, both the reports of the Tahsildar are very clear about status of petitioner as an ex-serviceman and recording of name of petitioner in revenue record. Apart from that the findings recorded in W.P.No.5924 of 2018 have become final. This Court is conscious that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not sit as appellate authority. In fact, the 2nd respondent, failed to consider the relevant material. 19. In view of the same, the order impugned in the writ petition, in the opinion of this Court, the 2nd respondent tried to sit over the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5924 of 2018 dated 25.03.2022 and in fact, failed to consider the reports of the Tahsildar in proper perspective. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The 2nd respondent-District Collector shall take steps to delete the land of an extent of Ac.4.72 cents in S.No.359/2 of Desaputrunipalem village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli District from prohibitory list under Section 22-A (1)(a) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After deletion of the property from 22-A (1)(a) list, the 5th respondent- Sub Registrar shall entertain the document in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed.No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.