THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.22151 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the document of conveyance presented by the petitioners in respect of land in Sy.No.54 of Hyderabad village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.620 dated 28.9.2002. The petitioners claim to have purchased land in Sy.No.54 under registerd sale deed No.1889/2002 dated 14.6.2002; thereafter they sought to sell 11 guntas of land in the said survey number in favour of Sri Mohammed Ansar; and, accordingly, presented the document before the 2nd respondent for registration, along with Rs.1400/- towards stamp duty and registration charges. Since the 2nd respondent refused to register, they issued a legal notice in reply to which the 2nd respondent informed them that, since an order of injunction was passed in I.A.No.100 of 2008 in O.S.No.12 of 2008, G.O.Ms.No.620 dated 28.9.2002 whereby Standing Order No.219 was notified, precluded him from registering the said document. Contending that the said standing order had no application as what was prohibited was registration of a document, when an order was passed restraining alienation, and not in case of an order of injunction, the present writ petition is filed. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents contending that G.O.Ms.No.620 would also apply to orders of injunction in as much as an order directing the plaintiff not to be dispossessed would include alienation also. Standing order 219(b), as notified in G.O.Ms.No.620 dated 28.9.2002, reads as follows: “If the Andhra Pradesh High Court, or any other Civil Court, restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of the Registering Officers or served on the Registering Officer, the Registering Officer is estopped from going ahead with the Registration” These standing orders are said to have been issued in exercise of the powers of general superintendence conferred on the Commissioner and Inspector-General under Section 69 of the Registration Act. It is only Section 22-A which precludes/prohibits the Registering Officer from registering those documents enumerated in Section 22-A. An order of the Civil Court is not one such. As to whether the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps could have issued such a standing order, in exercise of his powers of general superintendence, and whether the said Standing Order would fall foul of the statutory provisions of the Registration Act is itself debatable. Since, however, the said standing order or the Government order is not under challenge in this writ petition, I consider it inappropriate to examine this question any further. Suffice to observe that, since the said standing order merely prohibits registration where an order is passed by the High Court or the Civil Court restraining a person from alienating the property, the said standing order has no application in cases where an order of injunction is passed. In any event, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would come to the aid of the plaintiff if eventually the suit is decreed in his favour and, during the pendency of the suit, the suit schedule property is alienated. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondent – Sub-Registrar in refusing to register the document, based on an erroneous understanding of Standing Order 219(d), is illegal. There shall, therefore, be a direction to the 2nd respondent to receive the document in question, consider effecting registration of the said document in accordance with law, and in terms of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. __________ 3-11-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week B/o asp