ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. According to petitioner, he purchased land to an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.20 Part and Ac.0.35 guntas in Sy.No.40 of Pendyal Village and Gram Panchayat, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 13.08.2012. He also claim to have purchased land bearing Unit Nos.115 and 120 total comes to Ac.0.20 guntas in the West side farms in Sy.Nos.691, 692, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707 and 717 of Chilkur Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under registered sale deed dated 27.06.2006. O.S.No.16 of 2018 was instituted in the Court of I-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,81,96,713/-, on the allegation that petitioner failed to repay an amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/- stated to have been received from the alleged prospective purchaser of his land in Pangara Village, Nizamabad District. The plaintiff in the said suit filed I.A.No.258 of 2018 under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking attachment before judgment on land of the petitioner mentioned above. The trial Court by order dated 29.03.2018 granted the prayer of attachment before judgment. This order of the trial Court was brought to the notice of the registering authorities.

3. Accordingly, in the revenue records the status of land was reflected as covered by the order granted by the trial Court and included in the prohibited list of properties. Petitioner challenges the decision of registering authorities in including the properties mentioned above, in the list of prohibited properties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the order of trial Court is against attachment before judgment, the same is not covered by the provisions of Section 22-A of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore, the question of including the properties of petitioner in the list of prohibited properties does not arise. The registering authority committed grave error in including the properties of petitioner in the prohibited list. He would submit that the Sub-Registrar may refuse to receive the documents for registration on account of stay order granted by the trial Court, but he cannot include the properties in the prohibited list of properties. He also placed reliance on Standing Order No.219 issued by the Registration Department. Even according to the Standing Order, the action of registering authorities is not valid in law.

5. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court imposed restriction on alienation of lands which are mentioned in the interlocutory order granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.16 of 2018 and by virtue of the said order, petitioner cannot alienate the properties. Once an order of the competent Court comes to the notice of registering authority where restraint is imposed on registration of a document concerning the suit schedule property, the registering authority cannot entertain any deed of conveyance or any other transaction on such property.

6. For guidance of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps the registering authorities evolved procedure of showing the extent of lands covered by the Court orders also in their web sites and in official communication. It is only for the convenience of officers as well as public at large to know the status of land. Even assuming that the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act are not attracted, having regard to the Standing Order, it is the bounden duty of registering authorities to give effect to the directions issued by the competent Court. In order to give effect to the directions issued by the competent Court, if the registering authority displays the property in the list of prohibited properties clearly showing that there is stay order operative against the said property, the said decision cannot be faulted merely on the ground that the issue is not covered b