ORDER : Impugning the endorsement issued by the Joint Collector vide Rc.No.1618/2019/E1 dated 27.09.2020, the above writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that originally Jalli Atchayya was assigned land of an extent of Ac.4-51 cents in survey No.676 of Balighattam Village, in 1921. Said Jalli Atchayya, along with his sons mortgaged the property to one G. Appalanaidu, in the year, 1931 and later alienated the property to one Setti Kannaya, under an unregistered sale deed, in the year, 1952, who, in turn, along with his sons alienated Ac.1-00, Ac.2-51 cents and Ac.1-00 cents in survey No.676-2 in favour of the petitioners under registered documents bearing Nos.2744 of 2005, 2742 of 2005 and 2743 of 2005 respectively. The names of the petitioners were updated in the Records of Rights. They were also issued title deeds vide patta Nos.636, 631, and 1687 respectively. Subsequently, the aforementioned lands were included in the prohibited list of properties under Section 22(A)(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore, petitioners made an application vide application No.TTA0118000032165 and sought deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties and the same was rejected vide impugned endorsement. Earlier, the request made by one S. Krishna Babu to de-notify the land admeasuring Ac.4-51 cents in survey No.676/2 of Baligattam Village from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A of the Act, was rejected by the District Collector, vide proceedings in Computer No.31532/2017/E1 dated 10.02.2019. Later Joint Collector by the proceedings impugned rejected the claim of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4, and 5. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it was contended that the request made by the petitioners does not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.575 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department dated 16.11.2018. Though the authority has not disputed the assignment of land in favour of Jalli Atchayya, it was concluded that there is no document available regarding the transfer of land from Jalli Atchayya to Setti Kannayya. Though Setti Kannyya’s name was shown as Pattadar, he was considered an encroacher. Setti Kannyya’s name has been recorded from 1967 onwards. There is no substantial evidence to show that Jalli Atchayya sold said land to Setti Kannayya. 5. Though Setti Kannyya’s name was shown as Pattadar, he was considered an encroacher. Setti Kannyya’s name has been recorded from 1967 onwards. There is no substantial evidence to show that Jalli Atchayya sold said land to Setti Kannayya. 5. Though a separate counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4, the same is nothing but a reiteration of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2. 6. The authorities eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents Nos.1 to 5. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the assignment of land, in favour of Jalli Atchayya, was made in the year, 1921, i.e. before 1954, rejecting the petitioners’ application seeking deletion of the property from the list of prohibited properties, is illegal and arbitrary. He would further submit that survey Nos.675 to 696 of Ballighattam village, were carved out from survey No.301 and land in survey No.301 is recorded as Government land. He would further submit that the Record of Holdings reflects the name of Jalli Atchayya against Ac.1-80 cents and Ac.3-22 cents of land in survey Nos.676/1 and 676/2. The encumbrance, in the Record of Holdings, reflected the name of Jalli Atchayya and G. Appalanaidu(mortgagee). Thus, he would submit that since the assignment was made in the year, 1921, the property ought not have been included in the prohibited list of properties, under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterated the contentions as per the averments of the counter-affidavits. 10. The point for consideration is whether the endorsement issued by the Joint Collector vide Rc.No.1618/2019/E1 dated 27.09.2020 and the proceedings of the District Collector issued vide Computer No.31532/2017/E1 dated 10.02.2019, are sustainable? 11. As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute that land in survey No.301 of Balighattam village in an extent of Ac.207.23 cents is shown as “Forest”. It is also an undisputed fact that land of an extent of Ac.1-80 cents and Ac.3- 22 cents in survey Nos.676/1 and 676/2 was assigned to one Jalli Atchayya, in the year, 1921. Jalli Atchayya, along with his sons mortgaged the property to G. Appalanaidu, vide registered document bearing No.1140 of 1931, dated 17.12.1931. It is also an undisputed fact that land of an extent of Ac.1-80 cents and Ac.3- 22 cents in survey Nos.676/1 and 676/2 was assigned to one Jalli Atchayya, in the year, 1921. Jalli Atchayya, along with his sons mortgaged the property to G. Appalanaidu, vide registered document bearing No.1140 of 1931, dated 17.12.1931. As seen from the Record of Holdings filed along with the writ petition at pages 90 and 93, the name of Jalli Atchayya is shown as the owner of the property and mortgage in favor of G. Appalanaidu. Thus, the aforementioned property was assigned to Jalli Atchayya in the year 1921. 12. Whether any clause existed/incorporated in the assignment deed of 1921, restraining the assignee from alienating the land? The answer to this question is no longer res integra. 13. Before proceeding further, it is apt to extract the definition of assigned land under Section 2(1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). "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" (emphasis is mine) Thus, to attract the provisions of the Act, there should be a condition of non-alienation in the deed of assignment. The case at hand, in view of the discussion infra, since the assignment was made in 1921 no condition restraining alienation could have been made. 14. In A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Union, Chittoor District v. Joint Collector, Chittoor and Others, (2008) 1 ALD 29 , it was held as under: “58. “A plain reading of the above definition shows that the land, which was assigned by the Government subject to the condition of non-alienation can only be treated as an assigned land for the purpose of Act 9 of 1977. As a natural corollary, the prohibition of transfer as contained under Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977 is attracted only in cases where the land is assigned subject to the condition of nonalienation. As a natural corollary, the prohibition of transfer as contained under Section 3 of Act 9 of 1977 is attracted only in cases where the land is assigned subject to the condition of nonalienation. In the case on hand, the specific case of the petitioner is that the assignment in favour of K. Obulappa in the year 1933 was not subject to the condition of nonalienation. To substantiate the said plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. No. 1142, Revenue Department, dated 18.06.1954, under which, the terms and conditions of assignment were promulgated by the State Government for the first time. Clause 5 of G.O. No. 1142, dated 18.06.1954, is as under: The assignment of lands shall be subject to the following conditions:“(1) Lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable….” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the assignment in favour of K. Obulappa was made much prior to G.O. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954, the said assignment was not subject to the condition of nonalienation. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since, admittedly, the condition that the land assigned shall not be alienable was not in force in the year 1933 when the assignment was made in favour of K. Obulappa. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the Order promulgated in G.O.Ms. No. 1142 dated 18.4.1954 has retrospective application, muchless any material is produced to show that the ‘D Form Patta’ granted in favour of K. Obulappa contained such a condition. As a matter of fact, even the impugned order dated 12.6.1998 did not reflect that the second respondent had taken any steps to verify as to whether the assignment granted to K. Obulappa in the year 1933 contained any such condition prohibiting alienation. Hence, the impugned order of cancellation of assignment is vitiated by non-application of mind to the relevant aspects and liable to be set aside on that ground alone.” 15. In K.M. Kamallula Basha and Others v. District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor and Others, 2009 SCC Online AP 88 / (2009) 3 ALD 385 it was held that conditions prohibiting alienation were incorporated by the State Government for the first time vide G.O.Ms. In K.M. Kamallula Basha and Others v. District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor and Others, 2009 SCC Online AP 88 / (2009) 3 ALD 385 it was held that conditions prohibiting alienation were incorporated by the State Government for the first time vide G.O.Ms. No. 1142 dated 18.06.1954 and that, such a condition imposed under this G.O. cannot operate in respect of assignments made long prior thereto. 16. In G. Satyanarayana v. Government of A.P., 2014 (4) ALD 358 it was held that; "The ratio that could be culled out from the slew of authorities of this Court is that assignments made prior to issue of G.O. Ms. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954, in Andhra Area and that were made prior to issue of G.O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.7.1958, in Telangana Area, did not contain prohibition on alienation that the assignees are entitled to exercise all the rights including transfer of lands; that the initial burden lies on the Government and its functionaries to show that the assignments contain a condition against alienation of the land and that unless the revenue functionaries are first satisfied that the land is an assigned land within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of Act 9 of 1977, no proceeding for cancellation of assignment can be initiated." 17. In Boya Ramappa v. Joint Collector, (2017) 2 ALD 214 , it was held that as per G.O.Ms. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954, non-alienation of assigned lands was introduced only in 1954; by virtue of the said G.O., the Government has introduced the condition of nonalienation of assigned lands; and when once the assignment was made before that date initiation of proceedings under the Act of 1977 is without jurisdiction, as the provisions of the Act have no application in respect of lands assigned before 1954. 18. Thus, the expressions in the judgments referred to supra, signify that a clause of alienation was incorporated or introduced in the assignment deed for the first time as per G.O. No. 1142, dated 18.06.1954. 19. In the proceedings of the District Collector, filed as Ex.P2, the name of Setti Kanayya also reflected as pattadar from 1967 onwards. 18. Thus, the expressions in the judgments referred to supra, signify that a clause of alienation was incorporated or introduced in the assignment deed for the first time as per G.O. No. 1142, dated 18.06.1954. 19. In the proceedings of the District Collector, filed as Ex.P2, the name of Setti Kanayya also reflected as pattadar from 1967 onwards. The said proceedings were issued rejecting the request of one Krishna Babu for deletion of Ac.4-51 cents of land in survey No.676/2 of Baligattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal on the ground that there is no document executed by Jalli Atchayya in favour of Kannaya. It is pertinent to mention here that revenue authorities being custodians of records, should have explained how the name of Kannayya was recorded as pattadar. No reason is forthcoming from the authorities except stating that Kannayya is an encroacher. The authorities cannot depose contrary to the entries made in the records, about 6 decades back. 20. Thus, the record maintained by revenue authorities portrays the name of Setti Kannayya Naidu from 1967 onwards as a pattedar. Prior to that, Jelli Achayya’s name was shown in the year, 1934 as a Pattedar. The revenue authorities cannot claim and plead non-availability of record in their office. Since the names of Achayya and Setti Kannyya are portrayed as pattadars, a presumption can be drawn that unless Setti Kannayya purchased the property, the authorities might not have recorded his name as the owner of the property. Thus, this Court holds that after purchase only, Kannayya’s name was recorded in the revenue records as Pattedar. Despite the availability of relevant material, for the reasons best known the authorities failed to consider the same in a proper perspective. 21. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not normally act as appellate authority. This Court shall perceive as to whether the decision making process is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind or failure to consider the relevant aspects. Indeed the authorities failed to consider the material available on record. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshan Deen Vs Preeti Lal, AIR 2002 SC 33 held that the power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. Indeed the authorities failed to consider the material available on record. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Roshan Deen Vs Preeti Lal, AIR 2002 SC 33 held that the power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. Even where justice is the by-product of an erroneous interpretation of law, court ought not to wipe out such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. 23. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Dead) v. District Collector, Chittoor District, AIR 2019 SC 1706 : (2019) 4 SCC 500 : LNIND 2019 SC 252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "26. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision making process. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparent error. In exercise of power under Article 226, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact." 24. It is also an undisputed fact that petitioners, three in number, purchased the aforementioned respective extents of land in the year, 2005. As per G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 16.11.2018, the lands assigned before 18.06.1954, do not come under the purview of Section 22-A of the Act. Thus, in view of the discussion supra, in the considered opinion of this court, the authorities ought to have deleted the properties from the list of prohibited properties. 25. Notwithstanding the above legal position, respondent No.2 failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with its office and declined to delete the subject property from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Act. 26. It is pertinent to mention here that another villager, who was assigned land in survey Nos.680/1 and 680/3, in the year, 1921, approached the composite High Court by filing W.P.No.46559 of 2018 when the said land was included in the list of prohibited properties. The said writ petition was allowed by order, dated 28.12.2018, against which an intra-court appeal was filed vide W.A.No.331 of 2019. The Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 07.02.2020, dismissed the appeal. 27. The said writ petition was allowed by order, dated 28.12.2018, against which an intra-court appeal was filed vide W.A.No.331 of 2019. The Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 07.02.2020, dismissed the appeal. 27. Given the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the endorsement issued by the Joint Collector vide Rc.No.1618/2019/E1 dated 27.09.2020 and proceedings issued by the District Collector vide Computer No.31532/2017/E1 dated 10.02.2019. Respondent No.2 is directed to delete the land admeasuring Ac.4-51 cents in survey No.676/2 of Balighattam Village, Narsipatnam Mandal, from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22(A) (1) (a) of the Act. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.