Heard Sri v. Santosh

7. Mr. A. Saravan Kumar, S/o I\,4r. A An.iaiah, Age 48 yrs Occ Business R/ o 11-14-44612, Srinagar Colony, L. B Nagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pteased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action respondent No. 4 in refusing to register the sale deed in favor of Auction stating that the property is under attachment as per the orders dt. 31-12-2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ : i I i Arbitrator, Erragadda, Hyderabad (South), as arbitrary, il. gal, u nco nstitutiona I and contrary to Law and violative of Principles of atural justices and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 to receive and r( Eister the Sale Deed produced by the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in thr lircLrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cr i rt may be pleased to drrect the respondent No.4 to receive and register the S: e Deed produced by the Petitioner, pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.SANTOSH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: AGp FOR STAMprj & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P.DURGA pRASAtl The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.9373 of 2024 Datez 09.L2.2O25 Between: M/s. IDFC First Bank Limited ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. bf its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Stamps a:rd Registration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Six others ...Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri V. Santosh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and perused lhe entire material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 in refusing to receive and register the saie deed presented by the auction purchaser in vieri' of the sa-le certificate issued by the petitioner-Bank in respect of the property bearing Unit No.G-4, H.No.13-1-21l4 (Old H.No.1-21l4), PIIN No.1039900440, 2 sK, ,/ V/.1'.No.21A32 of 2O2J in Dream Home Prabhat Towers, having piinth ,r ca of 550 Sq.ft, along with an undivided share of land admeasuri; 3 18.00 Sq.yards (equivalent to 15.04 Sq.meters) out of iand of 629 je.l.ards, on plot Nos.4l and 42 in Sy.No.123, situated at F :abhatl.ri Nagar. Giaddiannaram Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mar,,al, undcr GHMC L.B.Nagar Circle, Ranga Reddy District (for bre .'ity, ,,the subject property") stating that the subject property is un I rr attachment as per the orders dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Dr put1. Registrar of Chits/ Arbitrator, Erragadda, Hyderabad (Soutt- ) as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further ;ubmits that the respondent No.7 obtained a housing loan of Rs 21,00,O00 /- uid.e Loan Sanction Letter dated 03.02.2024 from the ::titioner,Bank by mortgaging the subject house property by way of : Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 09.O7.2018 uide Doct ment No.3734 of 2018 in favour of the petitioner-Bank.

4. Learned Counsel lor the petitioner further s, tmits that due to default in repayment and adherence to the t: -ms of the loan agreement, the petitioner-Bank initiated legal p . rceedings against the respondent No.7 and obtained orders in its I: vour and r,vere in the process of selling the property to one Mr. Mohi mmed Jahangeer Pasha, the highest bidder in the auctio n uide sal j certificate dated 3 SI(, J w.P.No.21O32 oI 2O25

21.12.2023 and subsequently, had approached the Sub-Registrar for registering the subject property in his favour. However, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.4-Sub Registrar that the registration of the subject property ivas rvithheld due to an attachment order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Erragadda, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.3I of 2O2O rn Arb.CF.No.5O2 of 2019 in favour ol respondent No.6- M/s. Margadarsi Chit Funds Private Limited and in vieu' of the same, the Petitioner-Bank could not register the sale deed

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.4 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg Union Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors.,l and the same is followed by another Divrsion Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38125 of 2018 dated 14.lO.2O19. Therefore, learned Counsel prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondent No.4 to receive and register the sale deed presented by the auction purchaser in vierv of the sa,le certificate issued by the petitioner-Bank

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that in pursuance of the orders dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar of 'zora is1 alr zzs .SX .i \\r I, No.) 1.-).32 of 242.; Chits/Arbitrator, Erragadda, in LA.No.31 of 2O2O it Arb.C.F.No.502 of 2019, the respondent authorities have entt: ed the subject property in the prohibitory list and in view of the rrovisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the respondent N<, 4-Sub-Registrar, Golconda, is not empowered to delete the subjecl I roperty from the prohibitory list and requested to dismiss the Writ Pc iition. 7 . Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 clic not dispute the orders passed by this Court in Citg Union Bank ), mited (supra-l), but requested to direct that, if any surplus arnounl 'emains from the auction sale proceeds after adjustment of the ent re loan amount, the petitioner-Bank shall pay it to respondenl No.6. Learned counsel relied on the order passed by a Division B. -rch of this Court in W.P.No.22518 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024.

8. After hearing both sides and perusing the mir erial available on record, this Court is of the considered view that t'ere is no dispute with regard to the mortgage of the subject proper _v by respondent No.7 with the petitioner-Bank and respondent I\ t.7's subsequenl default in repayment of loan amount. The pet i ioner-Bank dull' follo"r,ed the procedure contemplated under the )ARFAESI Act to take possession and auction the property. Ho., ever, respondent No.4 refused to register the sale deed presented t. the petitioner in favour of thc successful bidder on the pretext .:' the attachment 5 SX, J W.P.No.21O32 oI2025 order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Erragadda, in I.A'No.3l of 2020 in Arb.CF'No 502 of 2Ol9 in favour of respondent No.6. The said contention of respondent No.4 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg Union Bank Limtted (supra- 1) . g. The relevant portion of the Judgment in Citg Union Bank Limited (supra-1) is as follows: "8. It is needless to obserue that the ciuil Coutl has no juisdiction to deal uith subject matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act ln the present scenario, the seanred creditor was not o parlA to the ciuil suits before th-e Courts belou't and ihus the orders of attachment before judgment ore not binding on the seanred creditor/ Bank. More so, the cause of oction before the Courls belou) is not u.tithin the ambit of SARFAESI Act. 10. Upon foir reoding of S.O. 219 in the light of Section 64 of CPC' this Court is of the uielD that it onlg pertains to a ciuil dispute betu.teen the piuate parties and' it does not include an instituttonal sole under a statute. Though Section 64 comes into play only after the alienation of the property under ottachment amongst ihe piuate persons, the said legol position does not create an embargo upon the Registror to proceed with the registrotiort of sale certiftcates under the SARFAESI Act as the bank ls nor o partg to the suit and the sale is not being effected by a patly to the attochment order. 12. In similor ctrcumstonces, the Kerala High Court in The South Indian Bank Ltd. u. The Sub Registrar (3) WP (C) No 3875 of 2017 d,ated 24. 11.2O16, considered the question uhether a sale certificote is liable to be registered or not in uiew of the order of attochment before jud.gment possed by the ciuil Coutl and heLd that the seanred creditor is entitled to proceed tuith tlrc registration and the Registration Authority cannot stalL the process of registration under the garb of an order of ottachment possed bg the ciuil Court." 6 in. ,, W.l' No.21032 of 20'25

10. The above said finding of 'the Division Berr )h of this Court would squarell' apply to the instant case and the Registration Authority cannot stall the process of registratior-r rf the petitioner- Bank in vier,t, of thc attachment orders

11. The relevant portion in paragraph Nos.3 a'14 of the order relied upon by the learned counsel for resi-:ndent No.6 in W.P.No.225i8 of 2024 dated 12. 12.2024 is extractc t hereunder "3. Learuteci counsel for the parties jointlg str >mit that the controuersA inuolued in the instant petition is squct zlg couered bg on order dated 19.12.2O18 passed in W.P.No.440 t. of 2-O18.

4. Releuan( extract of the order dated 19.12.2( 18 passed in W.P.No.44O14 of 2018 reads as under: "7. Therefore, the utrit petition is disposed f directing the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certiftcate. H'. Leuer, if ofter odjustment of the entire loan amoun\ ang : urplus money remain.s out of the auction sale proceeds, the Ba r c shall not paA it to the 7th respondent bonower but shall ptt r it to the Sth respondent-compana, after nottce to the 7th re.; nndent. There uil| be no order as to costs. "

12. In the instant case also, the petitioner-l: enk follorved the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to take possesrr cn of the subject property and conduct its auction. In view of ti) ) settled law, the respondent authorities have no power to refuse he registration ol the sale deed under the SARFAESI Act on the gro rnd of attachment /orders of the Civil Court or other authorities in res lect of the subject I 7 JA '-l W.P.No.2lO32 of 2025 property. In view of the same, the Registering Authority has to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the auctron purchaser, without reference to the attachment order d,ated 24.11.2022 in i.A.No.31 of 2O2O in Arb.CF.No.5O2 of 2079 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Arbitrator, Erragadda.

13. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4-Sub Registrar to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner-Bank in lavour of the auction purchaser as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, without reference to the attachment order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.31 of 2O2O in Arb.CF.No.5O2 of 2Oi9 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Erragadda. However, if any surplus remains from the auction saie proceeds after adjustment of the entire loan amount, the petitioner-Bank shali pay it not to the respondent No.7 but to respondent No.6-Company, after notice to respondent No.7. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, sha,l1 also stand closed. //rRUE GOPY/I sD/- M. JAWAIAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G; SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue, Stamps and Registration Department' SeiretJriat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' \ tion and Stamps riahi Market Herza 'Reoist' and lnspector Genglal

2. The Commissioner - ' gigtsHtii^x,,,,. -j:;[:m:lriift":'t'y;:' 3. The District Registrar, Stamps and Registration Depart rent, Ranga Reddy 4- The Sub- Registrar - Golconda. SRo, Stamps and Regis,t ation Department. 5. The Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Arbitrator' Erragadda' Hyl :rabad' 6 The Foreman/ Branch [r,4anager, M/s Margadarsi chit f r nds private Limited, District. Santcsh Nlagar Branch' Hi'ceracac

7. One CC to SRI V SANTOSH' Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to SRI P DURGA PRASAD' Advocate [OPUC] s. Two CCs to GP FOR STA[\'4PS-& REGISTRATION' H i r Court for the State " at HYderabad [oUT] "i%iu^sr"a 10.Two CD CoPies BSR GJP o HIGH COURT DATED: 0911212025 ORDER WP.No.9373 o12024 ( i) t.) .: '/y * 1fl , TA 6 E 7rl 2fi * r,a I lt --a ,l ; I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \ &b ,d