ORDER : K.SARATH, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.No.955/2, situated at Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, which was purchased through Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.8325 of 2011 dated 04.08.2011, from M/s.Orion Gems & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., and one Mr.P.Dhanraj Kothari. After purchasing the same, the name of the petitioner got mutated in the revenue records vide proceedings No.B/8778/2011, dated 29.10.2011 and pattadar pass book as well as title deeds were also issued in the name of the petitioner. Originally, the State Government assigned the land in favour of Mrs.Mahaboob Bee, who is the mother of late Sepoy Md.Khaja (Slain Ex- Serviceman, who was killed during Pakistan War) under G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963, to an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.955 of Rudraram Village vide proceedings No.A5/374/72 dated 14.08.1972. Thereafter, the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Sangareddy, issued a supplementary sethwar vide proceedings No.L7/833/72, by subdividing the land assigned as Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.955/2 and Ac.1.38 guntas in Sy.No.955/3 of Rudraram Village, in favour of Mrs.Mahaboob Bee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Mrs.Mahaboob Bee sold away the land to an extent of Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.955/2 in favour of Mr. Mohd.Farooq and land to an extent of Ac.1-38 guntas in Sy.No.955/3 in favor of Mr.Shaik Muneer through registered Sale Deed dated 27.01.2005 vide document No.696 of 2005 and their names got mutated in the revenue records. After purchase of the subject land, the petitioner proposed to convert the subject land into a non-agricultural land and then he found that the subject land is under prohibitory properties list. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted an application dated 06.01.2020 to the respondent No.2 requesting to issue No Objection Certificate with respect to petitioner’s land. After repeated requests, the respondent No.2 rejected the application made by the petitioner vide Endorsement No.E1/124/2020 dated 28.11.2020 on the ground that in the final patta certificate issued in favour of Mrs.Mahaboob Bee, it was mentioned that the subject land shall be heritable but not alienable. 5. After repeated requests, the respondent No.2 rejected the application made by the petitioner vide Endorsement No.E1/124/2020 dated 28.11.2020 on the ground that in the final patta certificate issued in favour of Mrs.Mahaboob Bee, it was mentioned that the subject land shall be heritable but not alienable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 28.11.2020 has been passed by the respondent authorities, even though the land was assigned to the mother of the ex-serviceman as per G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963. The lands assigned to ex-servicemen are alienable/transferable after lapse of 10 years as per G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963 and as per the clarification issued by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 11.11.1993. The original assignment of the subject land was done in the year, 1972 and after lapse of 33 years, in the year 2005, the alienation of the subject property was done and further, the respondent No.1 herein had issued a Memo No.24894/Assn.I(3)/2016 dated 16.11.2016, directing all the District Collectors to follow the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 11.11.1993. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, basing on the reply affidavit, further submits that when the vendor of the petitioner applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records, the Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal vide Lr.No.8/187/2008 dated 24.03.2008 stated that the land was assigned to Late Mahaboob Bee under Ex-Servicemen quota. Subsequently, basing on the said proceedings, the mutation in revenue record was granted in favour of the petitioner’s predecessors. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the date of supplementary sethwar in the year 1973 to till the year 2004-2005, the entire extent of land to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas i.e. land to an extent of Ac.3.02 guntas in Sy.No.955/2 and land to an extent of Ac.1.38 guntas in Sy.No.955/3 was recorded in the name of Mrs. Mahaboob Bee as pattadar. But, as per the Pahani for the year 2005-2006, the respondents stated that the land in question was recorded as Khariz Khata and the same was resumed by the Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 28.12.2005 and the same is absolutely false. When the petitioner submitted an application to the office of the Tahsildar seeking for a copy of proceedings No.B/5100/2005, dated 28.12.2005, the petitioner received a reply stating that no such proceedings were existing. When the petitioner submitted an application to the office of the Tahsildar seeking for a copy of proceedings No.B/5100/2005, dated 28.12.2005, the petitioner received a reply stating that no such proceedings were existing. If such proceedings are in existence, the question of Tahsildar recommending the name of the vendor of the petitioner vide Lr.No.B/187/2008, dated 24.03.2008, for granting mutation would not arise. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, when the petitioner made an application to the Gram Panchayat seeking permission for construction of a compound wall around on the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.955/2 of Rudraram Village, the same was not considered. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22322 of 2012, wherein this Court directed the respondent-Gram Panchayat to examine and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application. Subsequently, vide proceedings No.335/House construction /Rudraram, dated 09.04.2013, the Gram Panchayat has granted permission to the petitioner for construction of the compound wall by collecting Rs.1,45,200/- towards permission fee. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking NOC, on the ground that the subject land is in prohibitory list and cannot be alienated, is contrary to law and requested this Court to allow this writ petition by setting aside the endorsement No.E1/124/2020 dated 28.11.2020 and direct the respondents to delete the subject land from prohibitory list and issue NOC to the petitioner in respect of the subject land. 10. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments: 1) Ande Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh , [ 2013 (2) ALD 702 ] 2) Pothala Saidamma Vs Government of AP and another , [ 2007 (6) ALD 160 ] 3) Raavi Satish Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others , [ 2013 (2) ALD 1 ] 4) BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Co-Op House Building Society Ltd Vs State of Telangana and others , [2021 (1) Law Summary 119 (DB)] 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner had submitted an application dated 06.01.2020, seeking No Objection Certificate in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.955/2, situated at Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District, which was purchased vide registered Sale Deed document bearing No.8325 of 2011. Originally, the land was assigned in the name of Mrs. Mahaboob Bee, M/o. Late Mohd.Khaja (Ex- Serviceman) and the Final Patta Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Sangareddy, vide No.A5/374/1972 dated 14.08.1972, in respect of the land in Sy.No.955 to an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas, situated at Rudraram Village, Sangareddy Taluq. The said Patta Certificate has a condition that the land assigned shall be heritable, but not alienable. Further, as per the Faisal Patti, the subject land is assigned under the landless poor category and as such, the request of the petitioner has been rejected. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that all the transactions that were made against the subject land as stated by the petitioner were made without obtaining NOC from the District Collector, Sangareddy and the Tahsildar, Patancheru, vide proceedings dated 28.12.2005 had resumed the subject land as Khariz Katha. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that as per the Pahani for the year 2010-11, the subject land was recorded as Khariz Katha and the name of the petitioner was recorded vide Proc.No.B/8778/2011 dated 28.11.2011, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Patancheru, from which it is clear that though the land is a Khariz Khata, which belongs to the Government, the names of the petitioner and his vendor were recorded in the Pahani, which is contrary to the provisions under G.O.Ms.No.307, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 06.06.2013, wherein the NOCs shall not be issued to the third-party applicants and as such, the application dated 06.01.2020 submitted by the petitioner seeking NOC and removal of the land from the prohibitory property list cannot be considered and requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition. 14. After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner contention is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas in Sy.No.955/2, situated at Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and the same was purchased through registered Sale Deed document bearing No.8325 of 2011 dated 04.08.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for mutation of revenue records i.e. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed and the same were issued in favour of the petitioner. After purchasing the said land, the petitioner proposed to convert the land into non-agricultural land. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for mutation of revenue records i.e. Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed and the same were issued in favour of the petitioner. After purchasing the said land, the petitioner proposed to convert the land into non-agricultural land. In view of the same, the petitioner made an application dated 06.01.2020 to the respondent No.2. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings vide Endorsement No.E1/124/2020dated 28.11.2020 and rejected the application on the ground that subject land is assigned land and the same is heritable but not alienable. 15. Originally, the land to an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.955 of Rudraram Village was assigned by the Government vide proceedings No.A5/374/72 dated 14.08.1972, in favour of Mrs. Mahaboob Bee, who is the mother of the late Sepoy Md.Khaja (Slain Ex-Serviceman, who was killed during Pakistan War) and in the said proceedings, it was stated that patta was issued as per G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963. Subsequently, the said land was sub-divided into Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.955/2 and Ac.1.38 guntas in Sy.No.955/3 of Rudraram Village in favour of Mrs.Mahaboob Bee. Thereafter, said Mrs.Mahaboob Bee sold the subject property to the predecessors of the petitioner vide registered Sale Deed bearing document No.696 of 2005 dated 27.01.2005 and their names got mutated in the revenue records. 16. The main contention of the petitioner is that the subject property was assigned to one Mrs. Mahaboob Bee under Ex-Servicemen Quota by clearly mentioning the G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963 and the same can be alienable after ten years. In the instant case, the original assignment of the subject land was done in the year 1972 and after lapse of 33 years, in the year 2005, the alienation of the subject property was made as per guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 11.11.1993. Now, the respondent authorities are not granting NOC to the petitioner on the ground that the subject land is under prohibited properties list and the same is heritable but not alienable. 17. The respondents in their counter stated that the land in question is recorded as Khariz Khata and the same was resumed by the Tahsildar vide Proceedings No.B/5100/2005, dated 28.12.2005. 17. The respondents in their counter stated that the land in question is recorded as Khariz Khata and the same was resumed by the Tahsildar vide Proceedings No.B/5100/2005, dated 28.12.2005. In fact, without informing the same to the vendors of the petitioner, their names were mutated in the revenue records and Lr.No.8/187/2008 dated 24.03.2008 issued by the Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, in favour of the vendor of the petitioner. 18. At the time of arguments, this Court questioned the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue to show the resumption proceedings No.B/5100/2005 dated 28.12.2005, but the respondents failed to produce a copy of the same before this Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent authorities under Right to Information Act, seeking a copy of the proceedings dated 28.12.2005, the respondent authorities issued a memo stating that there is no such proceedings available in the office in Memo.No.Record/522/2025 dated 13.06.2025. 19. It clearly shows that without any resumption proceedings and by merely mentioning the subject land in the revenue records as Khariz Khata from 2005 onwards, the respondents cannot declare that the land belongs to the Government as the assignee violated the assignment conditions. Now, the respondent authorities rejected the NOC to the petitioner on the ground that there was a non- alienation condition in assignment patta and it is heritable not alienable. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ande Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (supra 1) and the relevant portion at paragraph No.4 reads as under: “4. A perusal of the DKT patta granted to the petitioner shows that the land was assigned to him in his capacity as ex-serviceman. However, unfortunately, the assignment patta has not incorporated the condition as envisaged by GO.Ms. No. 743, dated 30-04-1963. Instead, condition No. 1 therein has prohibited transfer of the property while permitting enjoyment of the same by inheritance. Despite existence of the said condition, the petitioner is still entitled to the benefit of GO.Ms. No. 1117, dated 11-11-1993, which was issued a few months after issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner, as the said GO has, in categorical terms, permitted the ex-servicemen to sell away their assigned lands after 10 years.” 21. Despite existence of the said condition, the petitioner is still entitled to the benefit of GO.Ms. No. 1117, dated 11-11-1993, which was issued a few months after issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner, as the said GO has, in categorical terms, permitted the ex-servicemen to sell away their assigned lands after 10 years.” 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Pothala Saidamma Vs Government of AP and another (supra 2) and the relevant portion at paragraph No.8 reads as under: “8. Basically, such assignments are not in favour of landless poor. Secondly, the Government itself issued G.O.Ms. No. 1117 dated 11.11.1993, permitting the assignees of such land to alienate the same, after expiry of 10 years from the date of assignment. It is not in dispute that the assignment in favour of husband of the petitioner was made on 28.5.1981 and 10 years have already expired. Being the successor of the assignee, the petitioner is entitled to transfer such land.” 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Raavi Satish Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra 3) and the relevant portion at paragraph No.35 (F) reads as under: “35(F) In cases of documents pertaining to assignments made to Ex-servicemen and Freedom Fighters, the Registering Officers must consider whether ten years period has expired from the date of assignment and shall register the documents if the said period has expired. In other cases, the Registering Officers shall pass an order under Section 71 of the Act and communicate the same to the parties concerned.” 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in BHEL Employees Model Mutually Aided Co-Op House Building Society Ltd Vs State of Telangana and others (supra 4) and the relevant portion at paragraph Nos.69 to 71 reads 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 dated 25.07.1958 and not mentioning G.O. Ms. No. 743 dated 30.04.1963 or G.O. Ms. 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 dated 25.07.1958 and not mentioning G.O. Ms. No. 743 dated 30.04.1963 or G.O. Ms. No. 1117 dated 11.11.1993, we are of the opinion that the assignees, who are admittedly ex-servicemen are still entitled to the benefit of GO.Ms. No. 1117 dated 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, (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 v. Sub- Registrar, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District. AIR 2017 AP 713(sic) 71. In AndeNarasimha Rao (supra), an ex-servicemen was granted assignment of land by the State without mentioning G.O. Ms. No. 743 dated 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 dated 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.” 24. In the instant case, the assignment patta was issued to Mrs. Mahaboob Bee as per G.O.Ms.No.743, Revenue Department, dated 30.04.1963 and the above said Judgments would squarely apply to the instant case. In view of the G.O.Ms.No.1117, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 11.11.1993, Mrs. Mahaboob Bee was entitled to sold the property after 10 years from the date of assignment. In the instant case, the assignee sold the property after 33 years of assignment through registered sale deed. Thereafter, the respondent authorities mutated the records in favour of the vendors of the petitioner by issuing proceedings in Lr.No.B/187/2008 dated 24.03.2008 and also in favour of the petitioner. In the instant case, the assignee sold the property after 33 years of assignment through registered sale deed. Thereafter, the respondent authorities mutated the records in favour of the vendors of the petitioner by issuing proceedings in Lr.No.B/187/2008 dated 24.03.2008 and also in favour of the petitioner. Now, without any proceedings and merely basing on the entries in the revenue records as Khariz Khata in the year, 2005 cannot state that the land belongs to the Government and also cannot state that the assignee violated the conditions of the assignment patta. 25. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not the legal representative of the assignee and the same is not acceptable as the assignee already sold the property in the year, 2005 and the respondent authorities have mutated the names of predecessor of the petitioner as there is no violation of assignment conditions. The respondent authorities have to delist the property from the prohibited list and have to issue NOC to the petitioner. In view of the same, the impugned Endorsement No.E1/124/2020 dated 28.11.2020 is liable to be set aside as the same is illegal and arbitrary and the respondent authorities have to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioner for conversion of the subject land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land. 26. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the Endorsement No.E1/124/2020 dated 28.11.2020 and the respondent authorities are directed to delete the subject land from the prohibitory properties list and issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioner in respect of the subject land. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.