ORDER : ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in entertaining the registrations of the Plots situated in Survey No.226/A, Gagillapur Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District despite notifying these Plots as Prohibited Properties and not considering the representation of the Petitioners expressing grievance on multiple registrations on one and the same property by creating illegal and fraudulent layouts, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of the Petitioners fundamental rights more particularly the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 300A and consequent to such declaration be pleased to direct the Respondents not to entertain registrations in any manner alienating the Plots situated in Survey No.226/A, Gagillapur Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Mr.Deepak Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.D.Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that land admeasuring one (01) acre situated in Survey No.226/A of Gaggilapur Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District was put for public auction by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad in execution of Certificate in RP.No.312/2022 in O.A.No.2238/1999 for recovery of dues from defaulter Company by name Sridhar Industries. 4. It is further submitted for petitioners that one Mr.G.Mar Reddy and Rapheal Reddy participated in the public auction on 04.05.2005 and were declared as successful bidders and upon receipt of the entire amounts, the concerned Officer of the DRT alienated the said property of 1 acre in favour of bidders i.e., Mr.G.Mar Reddy and Rapheal Reddy by issuing sale certificate and thereby transferred the right, title and entitlement over the said land in their favour. 5. It is submitted that upon purchasing of the property, the property was converted into house sites by obtaining layout permission. As per the sanctioned layout, the subject property was divided into 23 plots. The purchasers in the auction executed a registered GPA in favour of a partnership firm by name Pioneer Habitation Projects assigning saleable rights to the said partnership firm. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners herein purchased plot bearing No.18 and part of plot bearing No.19 situated at Gagillapur, Qutubullapur Mandal, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.25474/2008. The purchasers in the auction executed a registered GPA in favour of a partnership firm by name Pioneer Habitation Projects assigning saleable rights to the said partnership firm. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners herein purchased plot bearing No.18 and part of plot bearing No.19 situated at Gagillapur, Qutubullapur Mandal, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.25474/2008. It is also submitted that petitioners obtained loan from Syndicate Bank. It is further submitted that certain private individuals sold the plots in the layout by showing non-existing plot numbers and they were registered by respondent No.4 thereby causing double registrations. The said registered sale deeds were utilized for raising loans from the Central Bank by creating charge over the properties sold by the private individuals. It is pointed out that the sale deeds by which the plots were purchased (fraudulent transactions) were mortgaged for loans and defaulted. That Central Bank of India initiated steps under the Sarfesi Act, as charge was created by way of depositing the sale deeds in the Central Bank of India. 7. It is submitted that petitioners are put to loss because of the actions of the private individuals who fraudulently sold away the properties which in fact were purchased by the petitioners from their vendors who were the higher bidders in auction. This being the gist of the entire case, the petitioners are seeking a direction not to register other properties in the layout. 8. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the document annexed at page No.30 of the writ affidavit papers and submitted that properties in plot Nos.11, 12 and 5 in Column No.3 of the list of prohibited properties, the extent of the land prohibited by the Court stay is 283.86 yards and 156.57 yards. On perusal of the contents at page No.30, it is observed that the said properties in Sy.No.226-A are captioned as “covered by the Court Stay”. 9. The specific grievance of the petitioners is that the plots in the layout covered by the Court stay order cannot be registered. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents (authorities) contended that the Sub- Registrar, Quthbullapur entertained the document for registration as it was not brought to the notice of the Sub- Registrar with regard to the stay granted on the said properties. 11. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents (authorities) contended that the Sub- Registrar, Quthbullapur entertained the document for registration as it was not brought to the notice of the Sub- Registrar with regard to the stay granted on the said properties. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents has placed on record written instructions received by the Office of the Government Pleader, dated 06.10.2025 which are as follows: In this regard it is submitted that the subject property i.e., Plot No. 5, 11 and 12 in Sy.No.226- A, situated at Gagillapur Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. It is submitted that the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Lumbini towers, opp:NIMS, Somajiguda, Hyderabad vide Ref 068/3065/ ARMB/30884/Hyd Dated 01.03.2019 has requested the then Sub-Registrar for Prohibit/restrain from transferring charge the plots 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 (which includes the subject property plots 5, 11 & 12) mortgaged to the Bank. After examination of the contents of the said letter it was informed on 05.03.2019 by the then Sub- Registrar that "We cannot stop the registrations until Status quo order from court or the Gazette notification under sec 22 (A) E of the I, R. Act, 1908". It is submitted that it was alleged that the then Sub- Registrar has entertained the Registrations though the request made by the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Lumbini towers, opp: NIMS, Somajiguda, Hyderabad to stop the registrations. In this regard it is submitted that, as the request made by the Bank authorities were not inconsistent with the statutory provisions of Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908. Therefore, the then Sub- Registrar has entertained the Registrations in good faith. It is submitted that BSO 219 deals with this type of cases, which reads as follows: If the A.P. High court or any other Civil Court restrains a person from alienating a property and if such orders are brought to the notice of Registering officer or served on the registering Officer, the Registering officer is estopped from going ahead with registration. and the same were re- iterated as per the instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General Circular Memo. No.1/Gen.1/2010 Dated 10.03.2010 (Copy submitted). and the same were re- iterated as per the instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General Circular Memo. No.1/Gen.1/2010 Dated 10.03.2010 (Copy submitted). Hence, the request of the Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Lumbini towers, opp: NIMS, Somajiguda, Hyderabad vide Ref 068 /3065 / ARMB/30884 /Hyd Dated 01.03.2019 was not considered. As such the Respondent herein has not empowered to stop the registrations as requested by the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per the Debut Recovery Tribunal has pleased to issue attachment orders on different dates i.e., on 1.09.2014,09.10.2014,03.11.2022, 04.01.2024 and10.01.2024 with regard to the following Plots Nos. 1,5,9,10, 13, 20&21 in the Sy.No.226/A of Gagilapur village were entered in the Prohibited properties by the then Sub Registrar. From that day onwards no Registrations were entertained on the subject property. It is submitted as per Rule 58 of Registration Act, 1908 the Registering officer is barred from to enquire the validity of document which was presented before the Registering officer for Registration. Rule 58 deals with such type of cases. Rule 58 reads as follows: 58. It forms no part of a Registering Officer's duty to enquire into the validity of a. document brought to him for registration or to attend to any written or verbal protest against the registration of a document based on the ground that the executing party had no right to execute the document; but he is bound to consider objections raised on any of the grounds stated below: a. that the parties appearing or about to appear before him are not the persons they profess to be; b. that the document is forged; c. that the person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, has no right to appear in that capacity; d. that the executing party is not really dead as alleged by the party applying for registration; or e. that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or a lunatic. 12. Counter affidavit is also filed by respondent No.4. The written instructions reflect the contents of the counter affidavit, as such the contents of the counter need not be considered. 13. 12. Counter affidavit is also filed by respondent No.4. The written instructions reflect the contents of the counter affidavit, as such the contents of the counter need not be considered. 13. In view of the statements reflected in the written instructions dated 06.10.2025 that Office of the Sub- Registrar is not entertaining any further registrations pursuant to the knowledge of the orders granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, this Court is of the opinion that further orders nor any more adjudication is necessary. Be that as it may, it is for the parties to agitate their rights in accordance with law for any grievance. 14. For reasons aforesaid, Writ Petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.