ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in unilaterally treating the petitioner’s land an extent of Ac 0.66 cents situated in R.S.No.177/A1, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, as Government land, resulting in issuance of proceedings Rc.E3.1550/2008, dated 04.11.2008 by the 2 nd respondent and the consequential action of the 5 th respondent in refusing to accept any document for registration in relation to the said land, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the 2 nd respondent’s proceedings Rc.E3.1550/2008, dated 04.11.2008 and direct the 5 th respondent to accept and register any document that may be presented by the petitioner in relation to the said land and pass such other orders.” 2. (a) Petitioner’s mother Late Smt.Uppalapati Rajaratnam, purchased an extent of Acres 0.66 cents in R.S.No.177/A, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, under registered sale deed, vide Document No.3412/1966, dated 07.09.1966, from Nalluru Satyanandam and Nalluru Ratnamma. The said land later sub-divided as R.S.No.177/A1 and after death of Smt.Uppalapati Rajaratnam, the same got devolved upon the petitioner being sole legal heir. The petitioner’s mother purchased aforesaid land from the legal heirs of Nalluru Venkataswamy and it is claimed that the land in question has been private land all through after the same was assigned in favour of Nalluru Venkata Swamy in the year 1942 much prior to the enactment of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’). (b) Petitioner approached the 5 th respondent to know the details of basic register value of subject land with an intention to dispose the same and to his surprise, he was informed that unless no objection certificate was produced from 3 rd respondent– Revenue Divisional Officer, no registrations would be entertained. Therefore, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 21.06.2007 to the 3 rd respondent seeking permission to alienate his land, in a way sought for NOC. In pursuance to the same, the 3 rd respondent upon conducting enquiry and verifying the records submitted report dated 30.10.2008 to the 2 nd respondent – Collector for issuing necessary instructions in the matter. Therefore, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 21.06.2007 to the 3 rd respondent seeking permission to alienate his land, in a way sought for NOC. In pursuance to the same, the 3 rd respondent upon conducting enquiry and verifying the records submitted report dated 30.10.2008 to the 2 nd respondent – Collector for issuing necessary instructions in the matter. Basing on the said report, the 2 nd respondent issued impugned proceedings vide Rc.E3.1550/2008, dated 04.11.2008, opining inter alia that assignment was of the period prior to 1964, however, such assignment being conditional and as the alienation took place in the year 1966, in view of the provisions of the Act, the 4 th respondent – Tahsildar was directed to initiate proceedings under the Act and take appropriate action including that of regularization in case the conditions under Section 3(5) were met. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The 4 th respondent filed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 inter alia stating that assignment made to Nalluru Venkata Swamy was prior to the year 1966 and records relating to such assignment were not available, however, on local enquiry it was noticed that the original assignee Nalluru Venkata Swamy used to cultivate the land. It is further stated that the land admeasuring Ac.3.59 cents in R.S.No.177 of Kanuru Village, originally classified as “Anaadheenam”, (Unassessed Waste Dry i.e., U.A.W.D.) as per R.S.R. and later on was sub-divided as R.S.177/A, admeasuring Ac.1.64 cents and R.S.No.177/B, admeasuring Ac. 1.95 cents and pattas were granted to Nalluru Venkata Swamy, vide Patta No.381 and Nalluru Guravaiah, vide Patta No.382 respectively, as such, Nalluru Venkata Swamy was assigned land in R.S.No.177/A admeasuring Acres 1.64 cents. However, later their names were struck off in R.S.R. After his death, son Nalluru Satyanandam and daughter in law Nalluru Rattamma, alienated the subject land admeasuring Ac.0.66 cents out of Acres 1.64 cents to petitioner’s mother Smt.Uppalapati Rajaratnam, through registered sale deed, vide Document No.3412/96, dated 07.09.1966. However, later their names were struck off in R.S.R. After his death, son Nalluru Satyanandam and daughter in law Nalluru Rattamma, alienated the subject land admeasuring Ac.0.66 cents out of Acres 1.64 cents to petitioner’s mother Smt.Uppalapati Rajaratnam, through registered sale deed, vide Document No.3412/96, dated 07.09.1966. Basing on the same, Uppalapati Rajaratnam’s name was recorded in the adangals for the Fasli 1381 to 1384 and later on, based on survey conducted during the year 1979-80, the lands were sub-divided and accordingly, name of Smt.Uppalapati Rajaratnam was recorded in the adangals for the Faslis 1402, 1403 & 1404 and presently, the petitioner is admitted to be recorded as enjoyer and having an extent of Ac.0.55 cents in R.S. No.177/A1 and Ac.0.11 cents in R.S.No.177/A2, totally Ac.0.66 cents. It is further contended that the legal heirs of assignee have alienated the land through sale deed dated 07.09.1966, in view of the enactment of Act, 1977, which came into force from 21.01.1977, though the sale has taken place much before, the same is hit by provisions of said Act, in as much as the subject land falls within the definition of assigned land, therefore, the 2 nd respondent had directed the 4 th respondent – Tahsildar, to initiate proceedings under the Act. 4. Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4. 5. (a) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that originally an extent of Ac.1.64 cents in R.S. No.177/A was assigned in favour of Nalluru Venkata Swamy by granting D-Form Patta No.381, vide B.R.C. No.12/1942, dated 20.02.1942 and the same is evident from extract of Diglot (Survey Register) maintained by Karnam, which is filed as Ex.P1. He also states that the said extract however strikes off names of Nalluru Venkata Swamy and Nalluru Guravaiah, to whom other extent of Ac.1.95 cents in R.S.No.177/B was assigned under Patta No.382, however, maintains that purport of said exhibit demonstrates the assignment was made way back on 20.02.1942. Further, he placed reliance on another document i.e., copy of detailed list of jointly registered holders of Kanuru Village, Bezawada Taluk, Krishna District, being the official record maintained under BSO – 31, prepared during the pre-independence period, in which the name of assignee namely Nalluru Venkata Swamy was shown as joint Pattadar vide Patta No.245 along with Nalluru Guravaiah. Further, he placed reliance on another document i.e., copy of detailed list of jointly registered holders of Kanuru Village, Bezawada Taluk, Krishna District, being the official record maintained under BSO – 31, prepared during the pre-independence period, in which the name of assignee namely Nalluru Venkata Swamy was shown as joint Pattadar vide Patta No.245 along with Nalluru Guravaiah. Even the original settlement register filed as Ex.P2, which is also pre-independence record, the land admeasuring Ac.3.59 cents in R.S.No.177 has been recorded as “Anaadheenam” and that as dotted land, thereby it only connotes that land in question had not been cultivated during that particular period. The 3 rd respondent has misconstrued and carried away by the entry “G” in Column No.3 of aforesaid Diglot Register and the entry “Anaadheenam” in Column No.11 by understanding the same to mean that the land in question is government land and treated the same as unassessed waste land, whereas the expression “Anaadheenam” does not imply to mean so rather only connotes that land in question had not been cultivated during that particular fasli when the re-survey and resettlement operations had been conducted. As the very same register in other columns i.e., 7 & 9 described the nature of land and assessment of Sist being determined, the said land by any doubt cannot be treated as unassessed waste land. To support the said submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Dhulipalla Ramayya v. Kota Brahmayya, 1957 SCC Online AP 226 = AIR 1958 AP 100 . The fact that entries in Diglot Register as exhibited in Ex.P1 clearly shows that D-form Pattas were granted to Nalluru Venkata Swamy and Nalluru Guravaiah in the year 1942, which was absolute without a non-alienation clause and the same could be alienated at the will and wish of the assignees. He states that the aforesaid assignment was made in terms of BSO – 1931, which didn’t have any restriction or prohibition or condition of non-alienation and even D-Form Patta format prescribed therein does not contain any such restriction. He states that the aforesaid assignment was made in terms of BSO – 1931, which didn’t have any restriction or prohibition or condition of non-alienation and even D-Form Patta format prescribed therein does not contain any such restriction. The only condition by which a semblance of invalidity is attached is that of condition No.3, which inter alia stated that alienation of land without sanction of government to a person other than a British subject or a subject ofan Indian State shall invalidate the grant, which was made in pursuance to clause 23(1) of BSO – 15, which provided as under: “ 23.(1) No land belonging to Government shall be assigned or sold under this Standing Order to any person other than a British subject or a subject of an Indian State, except by the Collector or the Board and with the previous permission of Government. Every assignment or sale made under this Standing Order shall be subject to the condition that, if the land is alienated without the sanction of Government in favour of any person other than a British subject or a subject of an Indian State, the grant shall thereupon become null and void.” (b) He would contend that the aforementioned clause 25(1) of BSO-15 and condition No.3 of Form–D have no application inasmuch as the same does not amount to stipulation of condition of non-alienation, rather it only applied in case the land was needed to be alienated to other than British subject or a subject of Indian State, who are definitely are not persons belonging and residing in India. By placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Bonnareddipalli Seetharamamma v. The Government of A.P., [ 1979 (1) ALT 79 ] which was confirmed in W.A. No.418 of 1979, he would contend that this Court has already taken a view that condition No.3 of Form-D made in terms of clause 23(1) of Order 15 of BSO does not stipulate any prohibition to alienate the land to original assignee. (c) It is further contended that all grants or assignments made under BSO prevalent prior to 18.06.1954 were without any condition of non-alienation and for the first time, a condition of prohibition as a general condition of grant was introduced by amending BSO 15 by G.O. No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, by which it was stipulated that the lands assigned shall be heritable, but not alienable, therefore, such stipulation of prohibition shall apply only to those grants or assignments made after 18.06.1954 and that unless there is express condition of non-alienation in the assignment, such assignment cannot be construed to be meeting the expression “assigned land” as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act. In support of the same, reliance is placed on Raavi Satish v. State of A.P ., 2013 (2) ALD 1 : (2013) 1 ALT 774 : 2012 SCC OnLine AP 856; Kommineni Mohan Rao v. State of A.P ., AIR 2013 AP 89 = 2012 SCC OnLine AP 400; State of A.P. v. Kommineni Mohan Rao, [Judgment, dt.13.02.2013, in W.A.No.187 of 2013 of High Court of A.P. (DB)] ; and Thota Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P ., [2018 0 IJ (AP) 190 = 2019 (1) AmLJ 365 (Order, dt.10.12.2018 in WP No.20972 of 2015) (AP)]. (d) It is further contended that the Government cannot treat all lands granted under BSO-15 as assigned lands within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act and in order to attract the clutches of restrictions placed under the Act, the so called assignment land should be one granted to landless poor with a condition of non-alienation, unless both are satisfied the general grants made under BSO cannot be brought under the purview of the said Act. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on Bonnareddipalli Seetharamamma ’s case (Supra). 6. (a) Opposing the aforesaid contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not established that the assignment originally was of the year 1942, therefore, the same cannot be considered to have been made prior to 18.06.1954 to claim that the assignment did not have non-alienation condition and therefore, the judgments which have been cited above have no relevance. (a) Opposing the aforesaid contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not established that the assignment originally was of the year 1942, therefore, the same cannot be considered to have been made prior to 18.06.1954 to claim that the assignment did not have non-alienation condition and therefore, the judgments which have been cited above have no relevance. (b) By drawing attention to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, she further submits that inasmuch as petitioner’s mother has purchased the land in the year 1966, which was from the heirs of assignee i.e., Nalluru Venkata Swamy, the same is hit by provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act, which prohibits and invalidates such sale as being null and void. In effect, it is contended that Section 3(1) will have retrospective effect and equally applies to even in respect of transfers effected prior to the Act coming into force i.e., 21.01.1977. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 8. The facts which are undisputed are as follows: R.S.No.177 of Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, originally classified as “Anaadheenam” as per R.S.R. consisted of an extent of Ac.3.59 cents and as per the said R.S.R. (Annexure P-1), an extent of Ac.1.65 cents is shown to be assigned in favour of Nalluru Venkataswamy vide Patta No.381 and an extent of Ac.1.95 cents assigned in favour of Nalluru Guravaiah vide Patta No.382, however, the names shown therein were struck off. Further, in col.No.11 it is mentioned that aforesaid lands were assigned as per B.R.C. No.12/1942, dated 20.02.1942, order of Taluq Officer by which D-Form Patta was granted. The legal heirs of Nalluru Venkataswamy viz., Nalluru Satyanandam and Nalluru Ratnamma alienated an extent of Ac.0.66 cents in R.S.No.177/A in favour of Smt.Uppalapati Rajaratnam under a registered sale deed, dated 07.09.1966, vide Document No.3412/1966. Later on, name of Uppalapati Rajaratnam was recorded in the Adangals and presently her son’s (the petitioner’s), being the sole legal heir, name is recorded in the Adangals. When the petitioner approached the 3 rd respondent seeking N.O.C., though not required, by impugned proceedings, dated 04.11.2008, the 2 nd respondent in a way rejected the same treating the subject land as government land on the ground that the sale of land by the original assignee was hit by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 9. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 9. This issue as to whether the assignments made prior to 18.06.1954 would attract the definition of “assigned land” under Section 2(1) of the Act has received the attention of this Court time and again. 10. Before going into the above aspect, the brief historical background and the relevant regulations and rules governing the aspect of assignment of lands are discussed hereunder. 11. The Madras Board of Revenue was constituted on 20.06.1786. The powers of Board and mode of carrying on the business by Board was contained in the provisions of subsequently enacted Madras Board of Revenue Regulations, 1803. These Regulations were made applicable to Andhra Area. In exercise of those powers, the Board of Revenue had issued Standing Orders governing the revenue administration of Madras State as also matters relating to other subjects. The general revenue administration in the Madras State was governed by the Board Standing Orders and there was no comprehensive statute, governing the field unlike in the Telangana Area, where the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (1907) was in force. There were statutes governing several subjects, including certain aspects of revenue, but the general administration was governed by the B.S.O. in the Madras State. Similarly, in Telangana Area, Hyderabad Board of Revenue Regulations, 1358 Fasli, came to be introduced by which the Board constituted therein was exercising powers in relation to land revenue besides various other matters/subjects. However, after formation of State of Andhra Pradesh, two Boards of Revenue – one functioning in Telangana Area and another in Andhra Area were amalgamated and the Board of Revenue functioning in the Andhra Area immediately before 01.01.1956, was recognized as competent authority to exercise functions under Hyderabad Board of Revenue Regulations, 1358 Fasli. Later, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Board of Revenue Regulations, 1803, and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Board of Revenue Regulations, 1358 Fasli, came to be replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue (Replacement by Commissioners) Act, 1977, by which, Commissioners were appointed in place of Revenue Board Members. However, B.S.Os. still hold the field and form the basis for general revenue administration in the Andhra and Rayalaseema areas, which were earlier part of composite Madras State. 12. B.S.O.15 provided for grant of assignments. However, B.S.Os. still hold the field and form the basis for general revenue administration in the Andhra and Rayalaseema areas, which were earlier part of composite Madras State. 12. B.S.O.15 provided for grant of assignments. The assignments so made were liberal and unrestricted, thereby any extent of land was granted to any person irrespective of social status or any other consideration. Under B.S.O. 15, the assignments were granted and under the general provisions of said B.S.O. in Clause (23) restriction was placed that no land shall be assigned or sold to any person other than a British subject or to a subject of a native State, except by previous permission of the Government and any such assignment or sale made otherwise would become null and void. In line with general provision viz., para.23 of B.S.O. 15, as revised upto 30.09.1930, even the Form-D also contained a condition which reads as under: “(3) that alienation of the land, without the sanction of Government, to a person other than a British subject or a subject of an Indian State shall invalidate the grant;” 13. The concept of “landless poor person” as defined in the Act, 1977, was not in vogue at that point of time and such expression came to be introduced for the first time while amending B.S.O. 15 vide G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue Department, dated 18.06.1954. This amendment also introduced a new condition by which a prohibition as a general condition of grant was introduced by stipulating that land assigned shall be heritable but not alienable.Earlier, there was no prohibition in relation to alienating assigned land in the general Darkasth Rules and such condition for first time was introduced by aforesaid amendment. The relevant portions of G.O.No.1142 read as under: “(1) Lands at the disposal of the Government should be assigned only to landless poor persons who directly engage themselves in cultivation, including ex-toddy tappers, backward communities and weavers. Note:- (i) A landless poor person is one who owns not more than 2 ½ acres of wet or 5 acres of dry land is also poor. The question whether a person is poor or not will be decided by the Collector using his own discretion. One acre of wet land will be treated as equivalent to two acres of dry land.” (ii) (2) … (3) … (4) … (5) The assignment of lands shall be subject to the following conditions. The question whether a person is poor or not will be decided by the Collector using his own discretion. One acre of wet land will be treated as equivalent to two acres of dry land.” (ii) (2) … (3) … (4) … (5) The assignment of lands shall be subject to the following conditions. (i) Lands assigned shall be heritable but not alienable. (ii) Preference shall be given to the people in the village where the lands are situated; (iii) Lands assigned shall be brought under cultivation within three years. (iv) No land tax shall be collected for the first three years except for the extent, if any, which has already been brought under cultivation. Water rate shall, however, be charged if the lands are irrigated with Government water;and (v) Cultivation should be by the assignee or the members of his family or with hired labour under the supervision of himself or a member of his family. Note:- (1) For breach of any of the conditions (i), (iii)and (v) where the Government will be at liberty to resume the land and assign it to whomsoever they like. Note:- (2) “The lands assigned to landless persons under the G.O. may be mortgaged to the Government or to a Co-operative Society, recognized by the Government including a Land Mortgage Bank or the Panchayat Samithi for obtaining loans for development of the land. The loan to be advanced will be in instalments not less than 3 depending upon the improvement effected on the land. No prior permission of the Government is necessary for such mortgage”. (G.O.Ms.No.1611, Rev., dated 19.9.1963).” 14. As the lands which were assigned to landless poor persons, by way of grant of D-Form pattas, though prohibit alienation of such lands, and that the existing rules do not have any machinery provisions for punishing persons who otherwise purchased the same and in order to ensure the land remain within the landless poor, protective legislation against transfers and alienation of assigned lands was brought in by enacting the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, which came into force with effect from 21.01.1977. Section 2(1) defined “assigned land” to mean land 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. Similarly, “landless poor person” has been defined under Section 2(3) to mean a person who owns an extent of land not more than 1.011715 hectares (two and half acres) of wet land or 2.023430 hectares (five acres) of dry land or such other extent of land as has been or may be specified by the Government in this behalf from time to time and who has no other means of livelihood. Section 3(1) prohibits transfer of assigned lands which read as under: “ 3. Prohibition of transfer assigned lands: (1) Where before or after the commencement of this Act any land has been assigned by the Government to a landless poor person for purpose of cultivation or as a house-site then, notwithstanding to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force or in the deed to transfer or other document relating to such land, it shall not be transferred and shall be deemed never to have been transferred; and accordingly no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer.” 15. In view of the definition to “assigned land” and read with the restriction placed under Section 3(1), which prohibits transfer of assigned lands, the revenue officials as well as registering authorities in number of cases have placed the lands which were originally assigned both after issuance of G.O. No.1142, dated 18.06.1954 and prior to under prohibitory list by including such lands though not notified under Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, leading to flood of cases before this Court. 16. 16. While considering the issue as to whether the provisions of the Act would apply to all lands which were assigned even prior to the Act coming into force and restriction under Section 3(1) of the Act, which prohibits such transfers, the Full Bench in Dharama Reddy v. Sub-Collector, Bodhan, Nizamabad District, [ 1987 (1) APLJ 171 (HC)] held that the transfers made even prior to the Act coming into force, if the land assigned qualifies to be the assigned land as defined under Section 2(1) will be hit by Section 3(1) of the Act, thereby, Section 3(1) of the Act not only prohibits transfer of the assigned lands on or after the commencement of the Act, but also declares retrospectively that all transfers of such assigned lands which took place prior to coming into force of the Act shall also be null and void, non est in the eye of law, and no right of title in such assigned land shall rest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. 17. In Raavi Satish (Supra) , this Court while considering the issue as to whether assignments made prior to the issuance of G.O. No.1142, dated 18.06.1954 would fall within the definition of “assigned land”under Section 2(1) of the Act, held as follows: “ 20. It is conceded by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that in all these cases which pertain to lands situated in the non-Telangana Area, assignments were made either prior to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954, or no evidence exists as to the actual dates of assignment it is not in dispute that in respect of the lands situated in the Andhra Area (non-Telangana Area), a condition prohibiting transfer of lands was incorporated for the first time under G.O. Ms. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954. In respect of the lands situated in the Telangana Area, such a condition was first incorporated under G.O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.7.1958. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954. In respect of the lands situated in the Telangana Area, such a condition was first incorporated under G.O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.7.1958. Dealing with the lands situated in the Telangana Area, a Division Bench of this Court in Letter sent from Plot No. 338, Parvanth Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad v. Collector & District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, 2008 (5) ALD 626 (DB) : 2008 (5) ALT 313 (DB), on an exhaustive consideration of the legal position held that unless the patta granted to the assignee contained a condition against non-alienation, the land covered by such patta does not fall within the definition of “assigned land” under Section 2(1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977). The Division Bench has also taken note of the fact that the assignments are of two types, namely, assignment on payment of market value, and assignment to landless poor persons, and that only in the latter category of cases that the bar imposed on alienation under the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 would apply. 21. In Akkem Anjaiah v. Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 2011 (5) ALD 92 : 2012 ALT (Rev.) 83, I had an occasion to consider a similar issue as was dealt by the Division Bench in Letter sent from Plot No. 338's case (supra). In the said case, this Court held that as the assignment patta was granted prior to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.7.1958, the initial burden lies on the Revenue Officials to show that the patta contained a condition against alienation of the land and that unless the Revenue Officials are first satisfied that the land is an “assigned land” within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act 9 of 1977, no proceedings for cancellation of the assignment for alienation of the assigned land can be initiated. 22. 22. In P.V. Rajendra Kumar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2011 (3) ALD 571 , I have held, at Para 4, as under: “……The term ‘assigned land’ is defined by Section 2(1) of the Act to the effect that the 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. In order to attract the bar of registration, the land must be an assigned land within the above mentioned definition. Unless the patta under which the assignment is made contains a condition of non-alienability, such land cannot be treated as assigned land within the provisions of the Act……” 23. In several judgments, various learned Judges of this Court have taken similar views (See: KM. Kamallula Basha v. District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor, 2009 (3) ALD 385 , The A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Union, Madanapalli Division, Madanapalli v. The Joint Collector, Chittoor, WP No. 19258 of 1998, dated 14.9.2007 and D. Parthasaradhi Sarma v. Government of A.P., Revenue (Assn.II) Department, WP No. 27217 of 2003, dated 15.4.2008). The above noted judgments are only illustrative of a slew of judgments in which the above mentioned consistent view is taken by this Court. Most unfortunately, the precedential value of these judgments is persistently being ignored by the Revenue Officials as well as the registering authorities. While on one hand the revenue authorities, such as, Tahsildars, Revenue Divisional Officers, and in some cases even District Collectors, have been sending the lists styling them as “prohibitory lists” by including the lands which are not notified under Section 22-A(2) of the Act without verifying whether the assignment was made prior to issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954, or G.O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.7.1958, or that the lands were assigned on payment of market value, or assigned to political suffers or ex-servicemen or freedom fighters, in whose cases prohibition of alienation only for a limited period of ten years is imposed, on the other hand, the registering authorities have been refusing to receive the documents unless the party who sought to present the document produces no Objection Certificate (NOC) from the revenue authorities. This fundamentally flawed approach of both the Revenue and the registering authorities, has become the root cause for sprouting up of the litigation, and I am afraid, unless the flood gates are closed, there is a danger of this litigation reaching morbid proportions. 35. In order to see that the litigation of this nature is curbed once and for all, I feel it not only appropriate, but also imperative to issue the following directions, which shall be of general application throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh and govern all transactions of registration, to take place in future: (A) …. (B) …. (C) …. (D) In cases of assigned lands, if there is clear proof to the effect that such assignments were made prior to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954 in the Andhra Area and G.O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.7.1958 in the Telangana Area, the Registering Officers shall receive and register the documents, notwithstanding the fact that the properties were included in the prohibitory lists sent by the revenue authorities. In respect of the documents involving properties assigned subsequent to the issuance of the above mentioned G.Os., in view of the embargo contained in Section 5(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, the Registering Officers shall make an endorsement while refusing to receive the document specifying the reason. If the parties feel aggrieved by such orders, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedy as available in law. (E) Wherever there is no specific evidence that assignments of lands were made subsequent to the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 1142, dated 18.6.1954 in the Andhra Area and G.O. Ms. No. 1406, dated 25.7.1958 in the Telangana Area, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the parties who intend to transfer the lands. In such cases, the Registering Officers shall write to the revenue authorities to produce proof of the fact that the assignments were made subsequent to 18.6.1954 or 25.7.1958, as the case may be, within a stipulated time. If within such time, the revenue authority concerned fails to send such proof, the Registering Officers shall register the documents. (F) ….. (G)…. (H) …. (I) ….. (J) ….” 18. Similar view was expressed in Kommineni Mohan Naidu (Supra) which read as under: “ It is an undisputed position that prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. If within such time, the revenue authority concerned fails to send such proof, the Registering Officers shall register the documents. (F) ….. (G)…. (H) …. (I) ….. (J) ….” 18. Similar view was expressed in Kommineni Mohan Naidu (Supra) which read as under: “ It is an undisputed position that prior to issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 1142, dated 18-6-1954 (in the affidavit the petitioners have wrongly mentioned the date as 18-4-1954), the assigned lands did not contain any clause prohibiting their alienation. For the first time, by the said G.O., a clause prohibiting alienations of the assigned lands was introduced in the assignment conditions in Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the lands in question were assigned somewhere between the years 1932 and 1948.” 19. The above view expressed has been affirmed by the Division Bench in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kommineni Mohan Naidu (Supra) and relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “4. It appears that it is an undisputed position that prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954, the assigned lands did not contain any clause prohibiting their alienation. For the first time, by the said G.O., a clause prohibiting alienations of the assigned lands was introduced. In these circumstances, the petitioners, in support of their plea also filed a copy of the proceedings in Roc.A/627/2001, dated 20.4.2012 of the 3 rd respondent, wherein he has traced the history of the lands, including the lands over which the petitioners are claiming right, which clearly shows that all the sub-divided survey numbers relate to the lands assigned between 1932 and 1948, during which period, there was no condition in the DKT pattas prohibiting the sale or purchase of such lands.” 20. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No.575, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 16.11.2018, for deletion of government land assigned prior to 18.06.1954 from the purview of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Relevant portion of the said G.O., reads as under: “3. The Special C.S. & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., in his letter 3 rd read above has stated that, it is evident that the condition of non-alienation was stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1142, Revenue Department, dt.18.06.1954. Prior to 18.06.1954, there was no condition of non-alienation of assigned lands. Moreover as per sub-section (1) of Section 2 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Prior to 18.06.1954, there was no condition of non-alienation of assigned lands. Moreover as per sub-section (1) of Section 2 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. “Assigned land” means 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”. 4. The Spl. C.S. & Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has suggested that all assignments made prior to 18.06.1954 may be considered for deletion from the purview of Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 as there was no condition of non-alienation. The condition of non-alienation to non-British subjects may be ignored as it is irrelevant at present. The clear statement about the assigned lands prior to 18.06.1954, will settle a number of land matters and court cases being faced by the Revenue Department. 5. After careful examination of the matter, Government hereby order for deletion of Government lands assigned prior to 18.06.1954 from the purview of Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908.” 21. In Thota Koteswara Rao (Supra) , the above said G.O. came to be considered and by following the judgment in W.A. No.187 of 2013, dated 13.02.2013, (5 supra), it was held that the assignments made prior to the cut-off date i.e. 18.06.1954 did not provide for a condition of non-alienation, thereby registration of said lands cannot be denied, by continuing to place them under prohibited list under Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. 22. Considering the above march of law and various judgments rendered by this Court, the facts of the present case are considered as under: 23. The petitioner claims that subject land was initially assigned by way of grant of D-Form Patta in the year 1942, in favour of Nalluru Venkata Swamy, in support of which, reliance is placed on Ex.P1, which is an extract from Diglot Register (Survey Register). Further, the petitioner placed reliance on Ex.P2, which is an extract from Diglot Register (Survey Register) – Village No.60, Kanuru, to show that the land in Survey No.177 has been recorded as “Anaadheenam” which means uncultivated land. Further, the petitioner placed reliance on Ex.P2, which is an extract from Diglot Register (Survey Register) – Village No.60, Kanuru, to show that the land in Survey No.177 has been recorded as “Anaadheenam” which means uncultivated land. Further, by way of I.A. No.3 of 2022, the petitioner also filed copy of detailed list of jointly registered holders in the village of Kanuru, No.60, Bezwada Taluk, Krishna District, which was secured from the office of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Reforms, Central Survey Office, Hyderabad, which record was prepared during the Pre-Independence period and shows that subject land was held privately and the names of Nalluru Venkataswamy and Nalluru Guravayya were shown as pattadars against Patta No.245. The petitioner’s mother purchased Ac.0.66 cents out of Ac.1.64 cents from legal heirs of original assignees under registered sale deed, dated 07.09.1966 vide Document No.3412/1966. 24. As against aforesaid stand of the petitioner, respondents 1 to 4 in their counter-affidavit did not dispute the factum of assignment made in favour of Nalluru Venkataswamy and subsequent alienation by legal heirs of Nalluru Venkataswamy in favour of petitioner’s mother. But, the respondents have maintained their stand that the assignment so made was before 1966 and records relating to said assignment were not available with them. They have not specifically denied or contested that the assignment was made in the year 1942, except stating that in the R.S.R., though names of Nalluru Venkataswamy and Nalluru Guravayya were shown as Pattadars, their names were struck off. When the petitioner categorically stated that assignment was made on 20.02.1942 under the Order of Taluk Officer by granting D-Form patta, which is evident from Ex.P1, extract from Diglot, the respondents have merely stated that assignment might have been made before 1966 and that the records of assignment were not available with them. This stand of the respondents 1 to 4 that assignment might have been made before 1966 is apparently based on the sale deed executed on 07.09.1966 in favour of petitioner’s mother. The respondents 1 to 4 have not produced any evidence or material to controvert the record relied on by the petitioner by showing that the assignment made was conditional with non-alienation clause, unless this initial burden to show that patta contained condition of non-alienation of land is discharged, when there is contra material on record, this Court cannot presume existence of any such non-alienation condition. This Court in Akkem Anjaiah v. Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 2011 (5) ALD 92 : 2012 ALT (Rev.) 83 , considering similar circumstances held that the initial burden lies on the revenue authorities to show that the patta contained non-alienation clause and unless they are satisfied that the land is “assigned land” within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, no proceedings for cancellation of assignment for alienation of the assigned land be initiated. 25. B.S.O. 15 in its original form at the relevant period, as extracted above, had only a condition as per general clause which prohibited sale to any person other than a British subject or to a subject of native State without prior or previous permission of the Government and such sale was held to be null and void. This condition had been incorporated in D-Form Patta as condition No.3.This condition permits sale of land without Government permission in favour of two categories of persons. Firstly, British subjects i.e., Indians belonging to British ruled States (such as Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Central Provinces etc.). Then, secondly, subjects of native States i.e., Indians belonging to Princely States (such as Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, Gwalior, Patiala etc.). Therefore, the land granted under general conditions of grant is capable of being sold to Indians ruled by British Crown and to Indians belonging to Princely States and permissions were only required if land was sought to be sold to foreigners. This aspect was considered in Bonnareddipalli Seetharamamma (Supra), which reads as under: “…Thus, the assignment had been made in favour of Noothalapati Nagaiah in the year 1936, but the ‘D’ Form patta, which has been referred to earlier, does not indicate that the grant was to a landless poor person. Further, it was not subject to the condition of non-alienation. ‘D’ Form patta indicates that the application of Noothalapathi Nagaiah for the land indicated therein has been approved subject to the terms specified therein. Condition 3 makes the grant invalid in case any land is assigned to a person who is not a British subject or a subject in any native State, without the permission of the Government. I have no hesitation to hold that Nagaiah, the assignee was a British subject and condition 3 would not make the grant invalid. Condition 3 makes the grant invalid in case any land is assigned to a person who is not a British subject or a subject in any native State, without the permission of the Government. I have no hesitation to hold that Nagaiah, the assignee was a British subject and condition 3 would not make the grant invalid. The submission of the Government Pleader is that a British subject must be construed as a person who was a British citizen from the United Kingdom and was residing in India at that time. Such an interpretation cannot be acceded to. In those days, all the Indians or persons who were residing in British India were considered to be British subjects, whereas persons living in Native States were known as native subjects. During the earlier period, there were a few colonies of Portuguese such as Goa, Pondichery, etc. Hence, the nomenclatures of “British subject” and “native” were used in term 3 of ‘D’ Form patta granted to Noothalapati Nagaiah in the year 1936. This view of mine derives support from a Paragraph 23(1) of Order 15 of Board’s Standing Orders…..” 26. This judgment apart from considering the existence or otherwise of non-alienation condition in B.S.O. 15, at relevant point of time, also dealt with the issue as to whether the provisions of the Act shall have retrospective applicability to the transfers made prior to the Act coming into force. On the second aspect, it was concluded that the Act had only prospective application and any transfers made prior to shall not be invalidated or hit by Section 3(1) of the Act. This view was confirmed by Division Bench in W.A. No.418 of 1979. However, Full Bench in Dharama Reddy (Supra) over-ruled the above view in so far as it held that Section 3(1) only prohibited transfer of assigned lands on or after the commencement of the Act by holding that the provision also declares retrospectively that all transfer of assigned lands which took place prior to the coming into force of the Act shall also be null and void. Being conscious of the same, the above judgment in Bommareddipalli Seetharamamma (Supra), though not being strictly followed, which considered interpretation of conditions of grant, in particular, condition No.3 in the D-Form Patta, this Court, independently having examined the same, is of the considered view that neither clause 23 of B.S.O. 15 nor condition No.3 of D-Form Patta did stipulate any condition prohibiting alienation of lands so assigned. 27. The concept of landless poor person was not in vogue prior to 1954 and as seen above, the assignments made prior to also did not have prohibition in relation to alienating assigned land in the general Darkasth Rules. For the first time, by G.O. No.1142 Revenue Department, dated 18.06.1954, the State has brought in amendment to B.S.O. 15 inter alia stipulating or defining “landless poor person” for the purpose of assigning the government land by placing restriction on the extent of land one would be eligible for such assignment and also introducing a condition never existed by which the lands assigned were made heritable but not alienable. Though the above amendment was carried out to B.S.O. 15, Legislature thought to bring a comprehensive legislation to safeguard the interest of assignees thereby the Act 1977 came to be enacted with effect from 21.01.1977. By advent of the same, what was earlier there by way of Rule has been made as substantive legislation prohibiting sale and transfer of assigned lands with consequences and machinery provisions for initiating penal action. The expression or definition to Section 2(1) of the Act defined assigned lands to mean lands assigned by the government to the landless poor person under the rules with condition of non-alienation. In order to satisfy or fall within the meaning of aforesaid expression “assigned lands”, the assignment made has to be firstly to landless poor person and secondly, that such assignment was subject to condition of non-alienation. So, the test to be applied in order to see whether any land falls within the aforesaid definitions is that the assignees should be landless poor persons and the patta should have contained condition of non-alienation. So, the test to be applied in order to see whether any land falls within the aforesaid definitions is that the assignees should be landless poor persons and the patta should have contained condition of non-alienation. In the judgments referred supra viz., Raavi Satish (Supra) and Kommineni Mohan Naidu (Supra), have considered as to whether there existed any non-alienation clause in the assignments made prior to issuance of G.O. No.1142, dated 18.06.1954 and held that in the absence of any material to show that the assignment patta contained condition of non-alienation, any assignment made prior to the cut-off date i.e. 18.06.1954, should be treated as one without any such condition of non-alienation, thereby, the bar imposed on alienation under the provisions of the Act would not apply. 28. In the present case, as this Court has already noticed that the respondents 1 to 4 except stating that the assignment might have been made prior to 1966, have not produced any material or record to show that the assignment made to original assignee contained any such condition of non-alienation. At any rate as the material produced by the petitioner disclosed that the assignment is of the year 1942 and at the relevant point of time, B.S.O. 15 did not contain any such condition of non-alienation and even Clause (23) of B.S.O. 15 read with condition No.3 of the D-Form Patta, does not amount to imposing any condition of non-alienation, this Court is satisfied that the subject land does not fall within the meaning of assigned land under Section 2(1) of the Act, which imposes bar on alienation. 29. This Court in Raavi Satish (Supra) has issued various directions of general application throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh governing all transactions of registration to take place in future. The above directions were to bind all the revenue authorities and the registering officers in the State irrespective of whether they are parties to the aforesaid cases decided therein and further directed that violation of those directions by any officers concerned shall be viewed as contempt of Court and necessary circulars were directed to be issued in that regard by the Principal Secretaries of the Departments of Revenue and Revenue (Registration & Stamps) by circulating a copy of the said judgment. This judgment still holds good and directions issued therein shall apply in all force. 30. This judgment still holds good and directions issued therein shall apply in all force. 30. By reiterating the aforesaid directions, the present Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings in Rc.E3.1550/2008, dated 04.11.2008, issued by the 2 nd respondent and further, the 5 th respondent is directed to receive and register the documents in relation to the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0.66 cents in R.S.No.177/A, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.