ORDER : This Writ Petition is being disposed of with the consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents at the admission stage. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the impugned proceedings dated 30-09-2024 issued by the 3 rd respondent-District Collector, Nirmal District, in proceedings No.E2/805/2024, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to correct the revenue records in the Dharnai web portal in respect of the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts in Sy. No.227/8 of Aloor village, Sarangapur Mandal, Nirmal District by i) Changing the land nature from assigned patta land to patta land; ii) Deleting the POT Case status; iii) Changing transaction status from assigned land to patta land; iv) De-notifying the land from the prohibitory list and v) Updating all revenue records including pahanies, IB, ROR and portal data accordingly. 3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L. Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land having purchased the said land from one Smt. Thota Yerra Bhai through a Sada Bainama dated 13-07-2022. Smt. Yerra Bhai is the wife of late Jyothi Sipayi who was the original assignee of the subject land under the ex-servicemen quota as evidenced by the Final Patta Certificate dated 14-02-1975 as her husband was an army employee bearing No.5632302. He would further submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dated 30-04-1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1117 dated 11-11-1993, the allottee is entitled to freely alienate the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment even without any permission from the Government. This legal position is categorically upheld by this Court in BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Society v. State of Telangana , 2021 (3) ALT 146 (D.B.) wherein, this Court held that ex-servicemen assigned lands are freely alienable and cannot be treated as prohibited or non-alienable lands. In para Nos.69 to 73, it was held as under: “69. This legal position is categorically upheld by this Court in BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Society v. State of Telangana , 2021 (3) ALT 146 (D.B.) wherein, this Court held that ex-servicemen assigned lands are freely alienable and cannot be treated as prohibited or non-alienable lands. In para Nos.69 to 73, it was held as under: “69. Even otherwise, if there is an assignment of land to a person, who is an ex-servicemen, and he is a landless poor person entitled for assignment, even if by some error, the said assignment was made quoting G.O.Ms.No.1406 Revenue dt.25.07.1958 and not mentioning G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 or G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993, we are of the opinion that the assignees, who are admittedly ex-servicemen are still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 despite the existence of any condition in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting alienation. 70. Similar view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ande Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (7) 2013 (3) ALT 500 , and by the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari and others v. Sub-Registrar, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District and others (8) AIR 2017 A.P. 713. 71. In Ande Narasimha Rao (7 supra), an ex-servicemen was granted assignment of land by the State without mentioning G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963. The assignment deed also contained a condition prohibiting transfer of property while permitting enjoyment of the same by inheritance. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that despite existence of the said condition, the petitioner is still entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and he was entitled to sell away the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment. It held that such land cannot be included in the prohibitory register and the registering authorities cannot refuse to register the deed transferring the same. In that case also, like in the instant case, the Darkhast file (i.e., the Record of Assignment) was missing, and the Court held that the missing of the file cannot be to the disadvantage of the petitioner. 72. In Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari (8 supra), the husband of the petitioner was admittedly an ex- servicemen and he had been assigned land during his lifetime. 72. In Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari (8 supra), the husband of the petitioner was admittedly an ex- servicemen and he had been assigned land during his lifetime. After his death, the petitioner and his children wanted to alienate the said land, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register it on the ground that it was included in the list of prohibited properties communicated under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 by the District Collector to him. There was also an order passed by the District Collector refusing to delete the said land from the prohibitory list. The High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh (one of us, i.e., MSR,J had rendered the said decision) held that firstly only the State Government under Section 22A(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 can de-notify either in full or part any property which has been notified under sub-section (1) (a) of Section 22A, and the District Collector has no such jurisdiction to pass any order refusing to delete the said land from the Prohibitory Register. Though there was a condition prohibiting alienation in the Deed of Assignment granted to the petitioner’s husband, this Court held that since there is no dispute that he was an ex-servicemen, he was entitled to assignment as per G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms. No.1117 dt.11.11.1993 and the condition in the Deed of Assignment prohibiting alienation cannot override these Government Orders. It also held that instead of assigning the land to the husband of petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963, which entitled ex-servicemen to assignment of land, without application of mind, the District Collector had assigned the land invoking G.O.Ms. No.1142 Revenue Department dt.18.06.1954 applicable in Andhra Area. It held that for the mistake done by the respondents in assigning land to an ex- servicemen by quoting the wrong G.O., his family cannot be made to suffer; and that the State also cannot discriminate between ex-servicemen who obtained assignment under G.O.Ms.No.743 dt.30.04.1963 and those who were assigned land quoting G.O.Ms.No.1142 Revenue Department dt.18.06.1954. It held that all ex-servicemen form part of the same class and there would be no intelligible differentia to distinguish one category of ex-servicemen from the other category and it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if there were to be such discrimination. 73. It held that all ex-servicemen form part of the same class and there would be no intelligible differentia to distinguish one category of ex-servicemen from the other category and it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if there were to be such discrimination. 73. We respectfully approve the decisions in Ande Narasimha Rao (7 supra) and Thatisetty Kusuma Kumari (8 supra) and follow the same and hold that even if there is a clause prohibiting alienation in the deeds of assignment issued to the ex-servicemen, from whom the petitioner’s predecessors-in-title purchased the subject land, such a clause will not prevail over G.O.Ms.No.743 Revenue Department dt.30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms. No.1117 Revenue Department dt.11.11.1993, and such assignee / ex-servicemen / their family members can alienate the assigned land after ten years from the date of assignment without seeking any permission from the State Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the son of original assignee viz., Thota Sanjeev Kumar has filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2022 against the petitioner herein seeking declaration of title and rectification of revenue entries, however, subsequently they have entered into a compromise in Lok Adalat and an award was also passed to that effect on 12-03-2022, wherein, Sanjeev Kumar has acknowledged that he has no right, title or interest in the subject land and relinquished all claims in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has made several representations before the respondents seeking the correction of revenue entries but the respondents have mechanically directed the petitioner to make his request through the Dharani online portal. Finally, the petitioner has submitted an application vide Transaction ID 03t003000005380 dated 12-11-2023. Further, the petitioner has also filed W.P.No.4820 of 2024, and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioner. In spite of all these efforts, the respondents have not responded positively and finally issued impugned proceedings dated 30-09-2024 in E2/805/2024 rejecting the request of the petitioner holding that the subject land is purely government land. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. In spite of all these efforts, the respondents have not responded positively and finally issued impugned proceedings dated 30-09-2024 in E2/805/2024 rejecting the request of the petitioner holding that the subject land is purely government land. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, while opposing the same, would submit that; firstly, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent are completely in accordance with law and that the patta certificate issued in favour of the vendor of the petitioner does not demonstrate that the Final Patta Certificate was issued under ex-servicemen category; secondly, the name of the vendor of the petitioner was not shown in the revenue records after 2015-2016; thirdly, the said land allotted to the vendor of the petitioner is an assigned land and a patta relating to the said land was issued for the landless poor people, and lastly, unless the petitioner comes with valid sale deed, the question of entering the name of the petitioner does not arise and accordingly the 3 rd respondent has rightly issued the impugned proceedings directing the authorities concerned to keep the subject land in the prohibitory list under the Prohibition of Transfers Rules, 1977 and therefore there is no infirmity attributed to the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that; firstly, the patta has been issued to the vendor of the petitioner vide final patta certificate dated 14-02-1975. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition. 8. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon considering the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that; firstly, the patta has been issued to the vendor of the petitioner vide final patta certificate dated 14-02-1975. This is an admitted fact that the patta has been issued to the vendor of the petitioner and based upon the requisition made by the then Captain Records Officer, ASC records (Supply) Bangalore, to the then District Collector, Adilabad, in the year 1974 for allotment of land to the widow of late Sri Jyothi Sepai/cook who was enrolled in Army service corps and died on 06-08-1973 while in service and this aspect is not disputed by the petitioner as well as third parties; secondly, it is also an admitted fact that the name of the deceased Sipayi has been entered in the revenue records in 2016; thirdly, the name of the petitioner has also been recorded in the revenue records in 2018 and it is not disputed that the name of the petitioner has been recorded in the revenue records without there being any enquiry and fourthly, the impugned proceedings have arisen out of the order of this Court in W.P.No.4820 of 2025 wherein this Court has categorically directed the authorities to do the necessary action as per existing rules and keeping in mind the order of this Court from time to time. 9. Further, based upon the report dated 19-08-2024 issued by the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent had admitted in his proceedings that an award has also been passed in respect of the disputes arose between the petitioner and Sanjeev Kumar i.e. the successor of the original vendor in O.S.No.20 of 2022 and it was compromised in Lok Adalath in Case No.21 of 2022 in O.S.No.20 of 2022 dated 12-03-2022, wherein the matter was amicably settled. 10. Having considered all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities ought to have verified the sada sale deed (Sadabainama) dated 13-07-2002 before issuing the impugned proceedings and without granting any opportunity of hearing, the 3 rd respondent has put the subject land in the prohibitory list with non-application of mind. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders were passed without following the orders passed in W.P.No.4820 of 2024. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders were passed without following the orders passed in W.P.No.4820 of 2024. 11. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 30-09-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and remand the matter back to the said authority to re-examine the case of the petitioner for fresh consideration with regard to the validity of the sada simple sale deed (sadabainama) dated 13-07-2002, executed by Yerra Bhai in favour of the petitioner, inconsonance with the Lok Adalath award granted in favour of the petitioner in Case No.21 of 2022 in O.S.No.20 of 2022 dated 12-03-2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, by granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and to the vendor of the petitioner and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.