ORDER : K.SARATH, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in including the property of the petitioner bearing Plot Nos.474 and 475, admeasuring to an extent of 546 sq.Yards in Sy.No.66/11, situated at Ward No.3, Block No.12, Rock Town, Mansoorabad Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, under GHMC, L.B.Nagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) in the Prohibitory List maintained by the respondents as illegal and arbitrary and sought a direction to the respondent No.3 to delete the subject property from the Prohibitory List. 2. Heard Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and perused the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property having purchased from one V.Ganesh through Registered Document No.4618/2018 dated 27.08.2018 and since then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the said property was also regularized vide Proc.No.LRS/10558/CR-3-East Zone/2008, dated 08.04.2013. After purchase of the suit land, the petitioner also obtained permission from the GHMC for construction of a building vide permit No.2/C3/17656 /2018 dated 13.11.2018. However, due to financial constrains, the petitioner could not start construction immediately. But in the month of November, 2022 when the petitioner started construction, some third parties namely Chitta Shantasri and M/s. Saha Developers tried to interfere into the subject property, the petitioner filed a suit O.S.N.1652/2022 on the file of V additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy and she also obtained interim order on 23.11.2022, wherein it was directed the respondents/defendants to maintain status quo. Thereafter, on 06.12.2022 the ad interim ex parte order dated 23.11.2022 was modified as “both parties shall maintain status quo” over the subject property. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2886 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 19.12.2022 permitted the petitioner to go ahead with the construction, subject to the outcome of the suit. Meanwhile the Commissioner, GHMC cancelled the building permission granted to the petitioner vide orders in File No.683/TPS/CP/LBNZ/GHMC/2022 dated 03.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide WP No.6680 of 2023 and this Court suspended the orders passed by the Commissioner GHMC and the said writ petition is pending for adjudication. Meanwhile the Commissioner, GHMC cancelled the building permission granted to the petitioner vide orders in File No.683/TPS/CP/LBNZ/GHMC/2022 dated 03.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition vide WP No.6680 of 2023 and this Court suspended the orders passed by the Commissioner GHMC and the said writ petition is pending for adjudication. In the said writ petition one Srilatha got impleaded herself and filed vacate petition and the said vacate petition was also dismissed on 18.03.2025. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the subject property was put in the Prohibitory List in view of status quo order passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, in I.A.No.437 of 2022 in O.S.No.1652 of 2022. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Sub-Registrar and explained the nature of status quo order and also about the modification of the status quo order. Later on, the Sub-Registrar also obtained legal opinion from the Government Pleader of Ranga Reddy District and in the legal opinion it is categorically mentioned that there is no Prohibitory order in existence against the SRO, Saroorangar. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after dismissal of Vacate Petition, the S.R.O., Saroornagar issued notice on 26.05.2025 directing the petitioner to produce the copy of setting aside of the status quo order. In reply thereto, the petitioner has given a reply on 10.06.2025 stating that there is no Prohibitory Order restraining the petitioner and therefore there was no chance to supply the same. Again the respondent No.3 issued another notice on 20.06.2025 stating that he is not empowered to remove the relevant entry of the subject property from Prohibitory Register. Though there is no prohibitory orders in respect of the property from any of the Court, but taking advantage of the orders passed by the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was already modified to go ahead with the construction, but the Sub-Registrar put the subject property in the prohibitory list which is arbitrary and illegal and sought a direction to the respondent No.3 to remove the subject property from the Prohibitory list. 5. 5. On the hand the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.3 would submit that the subject property was included in the Prohibitory Register in view of the status quo order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the V Additonal District Judge, Ranga Reddy vide orders in I.A.No.437 of 2022 in OS.No.1652 of 2022, which expressly restrained interference with the possession of the subject property. The petitioner’s reliance on the subsequent order dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Court in CRP No.2886 of 2022 is misconceived as the said order merely permitted the construction activity to continue but did not contain any express direction vacating the status quo order or authorizing alienation of the subject property. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the respondents in maintaining the entry in Prohibition Register is fully supported by statutory provisions, particularity S.O.219 (b) of the Registration Manual which expressly empowers the registering authority to prohibit registration where judicial orders to restrain alienation or possession. The status quo order, though primarily concerning possession, has direct the implications on third party interest and potential alienation of the property, thereby fully justifying its inclusion in the Prohibition Register as a necessary preventive measure. The respondents have exercised due diligence in this matter. The Sub-Registrar, Saroor Nagar obtained a detailed legal opinion from the Government Pleader, Ranga Reddy District on 13.11.2024 which clearly states that while there was no prohibitory order specifically against the Sub-Registrar, the status quo order relating to possession remained operative. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submits that the petitioner has always had liberty to approach the appropriate Court for clarification or vacation of the status quo order if so advised and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.3 in including the suit schedule property in the prohibited list for registration on the guise of the interim orders dated 06.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.437/2022 in O.S.No.1652/2022 on the file of V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar filed by the petitioner. 9. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that she filed suit in O.S.No.1652/2022 against the defendants therein for perpetual injunction and the trial Court granted interim orders on 23.11.2022 in I.A.No.437 of 2022 in O.S.No.1652 of 2022 directing the defendants/respondents therein to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the trial Court passed docket order on 06.12.2022 directing both parties to maintain status quo over the petition schedule property till disposal of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before this Court in CRP No.2886 of 2022 and this Court vide orders dated 09.12.2022 granted interim orders permitting the petitioner to go ahead with the construction if she is having valid permission and the said construction is subject to outcome of the suit. In pursuance to the interim orders passed by this Court in CRP No.2886 of 2022 the petitioner completed construction. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 put the subject property in the prohibited list on the guise of status quo order dated 06.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.437/2022 in O.S.No.1652/2022 on the file of V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.1652 of 2022 against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of the subject property and not with regard to declaration of title and in the said suit the trial Court passed interim orders on 23.11.2022 in I.A.No.437/2022 to maintain status quo, but not with regard to alienation of the subject property. Moreover, this Court passed interim orders on 09.12.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner to go ahead with the construction work over the subject property as per the building permission and the same is subject to the outcome of the suit, but there is no prohibition order by this Court or the trial Court with regard to alienation of the subject property. 11. On the other hand the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that in view of the status quo order passed by the trial Court the respondent authorities have listed the subject property in the prohibitory list as per the Registration Act and S.O. 219 (b) of the Registration Manual and unless the status quo order is vacated the property will not be deleted from the prohibited list. 12. 12. In fact there is no prohibitory order by the competent Civil Court with regard to alienation of the property and the suit filed by the petitioner to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the subject property and initially directed the respondents/defendants to maintain status quo and subsequently the same was modified as both parties to maintain status existing as on that date. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before this Court in CRP No.2886 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 09.12.2022 permitted the petitioner to go ahead with the construction work over the subject property. In view of the order passed by this Court, the question of continuation of status quo order passed by the trial Court does not arise. Moreover, there is no direction to the petitioner not to alienate the subject property to third parties. The respondent authorities under the misconception listed the subject property in the prohibited list and S.O.219 (b) Registration Manual does not apply to the instant case and the said action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The subject property has to be deleted from the prohibition list 13. In view of the above finding, this writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent authorities to delete the subject property from the prohibited property list. If any alienations made by the petitioner, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the suit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner or subsequent purchasers cannot claim any equities over the subject property in the event of dismissal of suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.1652 of 2022 on the file of V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar and also W.P.No.6680 of 2023 before this Court. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.