HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in including the petitioners’ property bearing H.No.2-3-527/24 consisting of ground and first floors with a plinth area of 940 sq. feet total admeasuring 200 sq. yards covered under Block 3 situated at D.V.Colony, Minister Road, Secunderabad, in the prohibition list maintained by the respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the subject property through registered sale deed dated 17.09.2016, but respondent authorities have not released the said document and kept pending in Document No.P173/16 on the ground that the Advocate has issued notice to the registering authorities not to register the document and stated that his client has filed suit in O.S.No.13 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for partition and the same was dismissed on 25.09.2014 and aggrieved by the same, C.C.C.A.No.52 of 2015 was preferred before this Court and the same is pending for adjudication and in view of the letter addressed by the Advocate, the registering authorities have not registered any document and also put the subject property in the prohibited list.

4. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have subsequently registered the document of the petitioner and given registration document No.4196/2016, but not deleted the subject property from the prohibited list and the said action of the respondents is contrary to the Registration Act and without any power or authority and requested to allow the writ petition by directing the respondents to remove the subject property from the Prohibited List.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader basing on the counter submits that one Sri D. Hanumanth Rao, Advocate has filed a protest petition on 03.07.2015 before the respondent No.4-Sub-Registrar requesting not to entertain any registration of the subject property in view of pendency of C.C.C.A.No.52 of 2015 before this Court and the registering authority as per the Standing Order 219(b), kept the subject property in the prohibited list and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

6. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have purchased the subject property through registered documentNo.4196/206 dated 17.09.2016. Merely basing on the letter addressed by the Advocate that C.C.C.A.No.52 of 2015 is pending before this Court, the registering authorities have kept the subject property in the prohibited list and stated that on the strength of Standing Order 219(b), the subject property was recorded in prohibited list.

7. The Standing Order 219(b) is extracted as under;

“S.O.219. An order restraining a person from alienating certain property does not operate as a prohibition to the registering officer against the registration of a document executed by such person affecting such property.

(b) If a Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if he still choses to alienate it, it is he who contravenes the orders of the Court and not the Registering Officer. If, on the other hand, the Court gives a direction to the Registering Officer/Registration Department, the Officer/Department is stopped from going ahead with the registration.

8. In the instant case, the respondents have failed to produce any document to show that any competent Civil Court or this Court has granted interim order in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants therein for restraining the defendants/respondents therein from alienating the subject property. Without there being any order from the competent Civil Court, the registering authority cannot kept the subject property in the prohibited list and in view of the same, the action of the respondents is illegal and arb