Vangari Venkateshwarlu. S/o Late v. Krishna, Age

Mr. G. Vijay Srinath, S/o Late G. Subba Rao, Age 39 years, Occ Business, H No. 1-9-1 12l1/A South Kamala Nagar, ECIL post, Hyderabad 500 062 Mrs. Vangari Navaneetha, Wo V. Venkateshwarlu, Age 46 years, Occ Business, 1-10-281199122/8 anci g, St-tbhodaya Cclony. Kapra Circle, Hyderabad 500062 RR 5 to B are impleaded as per C O. d|.O1.O7 2025 in lA. No.2/2O25 ...RESF"ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the. circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court ntay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularl / one in the nature of the Subject Property Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to remov€ from the list of Prohibited Properties and to register the {iale Certificate to be issued by the Petitioner Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser under Rule 9(6) of the Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. lA NO: 1 OF 2021; Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the Represerrtation dt.25-04-2025 submitted by the Petitioner Bank duly taking into account th rule positron provided under Sec 68(3) of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI HEMANTH KUMAR VEMTJ Rl Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SMT. S. SRAVANTHI, AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P. DURGA PRASAD, SC FOR CHITS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8:--- The Court made the following: ORDER a- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.14893 of 2o25 ORDER Ijeard Sri ilemanth I(umar Vemuri. learncd counsel for the petitioner, Smt S. -sravanthi, learned Assistanl Governme nt P1c:rcler for Stamps and Registration and Sri P. Durga Praserd, learned Standing Counsel lor the respondcnt No.4 and peruscd the malcriarl on record.

2. Thc petitioner filcd proof of service of notice on the respondent Nos.S to 8, rvhich u,as published in daiiy newspapcr "Eenadu" on 21.O8.2O25 in Greater Hvdr:rabild Ddition r,r,hich r,r,as circulated in lvledchal- Malkajgiri and Ranga Rr:ddy Districts. In spite of the samc, nonc appcars lor t.hc rcspondcnt Nos.S tc 8.

3. This writ petition is fiicd seeking to direct the respondent No.2 to remove tl're subject property from the list of proh ibitcd propcrtic: s :rrrd to resister the Sa_le Certificate to be issued b), 1ht: pctitioncr Bank in favour ? SK, J W. P No. 14893 of 2025 of the Auction Purchaser undcr Rulc 9(6) of the Socurity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioncr subrniLs tl-rat the rcspondenl No.5 has approached thc petitioner-Bank lor the purpose of credit facility in the year, 2O1B and obtained loan o[Rs.60,00,OO0/-, which u,:rs er-rharrccd to Rs.69,00.t)OO/- on 27.O5.2O2O, b-v mor.r_gaging the residential building bearing H.No.1-10-28l l99122l8 ard 9 in Plot No.S and 9 admeasuring 400 sq. vards situatecl at Subhodaya Color-ry, GIIMC, K:rpra Clircle, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri District and deposited the original title deeds and tl-re s.une was rr:r:orclcd vide Rcg.MODT No.4329 of 2O18 ir-r the bool<s ol thc Sub- Registrar Offlce, Kapra. He further submits that in view of default in payment, the petitioner-Bank I'ras ir-ritiated proceedings under the provisions of Seclion 14 of SARFAESI Act and issued sale notice dated t)4.04.2025 under Rule 9(1) of Security Interest (Enforcenrent) Ru1es, 2OO2 and later the petitioner-Bzrnk sold the prroperty bv way of auction in accordance with the prc,cedure a:i I ,/7 SK, J W.P.No. 14893 of 2025 contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. In the auction, M/s. tr. Medimalt rep. b,y its sole proprietor G. Chinna Obula Reddy wzrs declarcd as highcst bidder for the bid nmount of Rs.l,28,27,OOO/- and after paymenl of 25ol' of the bid amount, the pctil.iolrer-Bank has confirmed the sa-le auction in lavour ol the Auction Purchaser. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank came to knorv that the subject property is in tl-rc list o[' prohibited properties as per thc attachment orcler passcd by the respondent No.3-Chit Arbitrator-curn-Dcputy Registrar of Chits in I.A.No.233 of 2O2O in AIiB.Cl'.No.323 of 2O2O dated

30.I2.2O2O. The respor.rdcrrt No.2-Sub-Registrar despite receipt of the representation of the petitioner-Balk on

26.O4.2025 refused to remove the subject property from thc list of prohibited plopcrtir:s.

5. Learned counsel lor the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.2 IS contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg Union Bank Limited Vs Srrb Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors.,l and ' zots (s) err zzg 4 SK, J W.P.No.14893 of 2025 the same was lollowed by another Division Br:nch of this Court in W.P.No.38 125 of 2Ol8 dated 14.10.2019 and requestcd to direct the respondent No.2 to |cgister tl-re sale ce rtilica te to be issued by t1'r c pctition,:r Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser

6. On the other hand, learncd Assistant (iovcrrtrrcnt Pleader for Stamps and Registration sr-rbmits tlrat though tl-rc petitioner made a rcprescntation dated 2(r.04.2025, during the scrutin.l,, it is lound tl-rzrt as per the order dated 30.12.2O2O in I.A.No.233 of 2O2O in ARB.CF.N<>.323 of 2O2O, thre subject prop€rrty is ur-iclcr attachmenl. ar-rd kept in the prohibitect prol)(jrt,v list ori the basis of Attachment Orders passe,l by the respondent No.3. The sale certiiicate to be prcsentecl by the petitioner cannot be registered until ancl unless the Attachment ()rders are set aside.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader ior Stamps and Registration further submits that thouch the sale certificate is under SARFAESI Act, it (lannot be registered as the property involved in the sak. certificatc 5 SK, J W.P.No.14893 of 202 5 is already in prohibited list on the rnebsite of the IGRS zrnd requested to dismiss thc writ iretition. B. After hearing both sides and perusing the material <>n record, this Court is of thc cunsidered vieu, that therc is no dispute with regard to the auciion conducted b-y the petitioner-Bank as pe r SARFAtrSl Act. The respondent No.5 has mortgaged the subject property u,ith the petitioner-Bank. 'lhe pctitior-rer by foliowing the procedure AS contemplated undcr SARFAESI Act conducted auction lor t[-re subject property and sale certificate has to be issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser. Now, the respondent No.2 has refused to rcmove the subject property from the prohibited list on the ground that there is :rttachment Order with respect to the subject property and until tl-re same is vacated, it cannot be possible to register the sale certificate to be issued in favour of Auction Purchaser. The said contention of the respondent No.2 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg (Inion Bank 6 SK. J W. P.No. t-1893 of 2025 Limited I/s Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors. (supra 7).

9. The r<:levant portion of the Judgment in Citg tlnion Bank Lintited Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors. (stpra I/ is :rs follows: "8. It is needless to obserue that the ciuil Court hns no jurisdictrt>n to deal utith subject matters perta tntg to tlrc .SA RFAIIS/ Act- In tte present scenaio, the secured creditor tuos tTot e peftA to tte ciuil suits beJbre the Courts bel.orLt and. thus tl'Le orders of attachment before judgrne,ttt are not binding ort lhe secured creditor/ Bank. More so, tlut cause ol' action before the Courts belou.t is not uithirt the anbit of ,SARFAES/AcI. lO. Uport.fair reading of S.O. 219 in the liqht of Section 64 of CPC, this Cour-t is of tl,Le uieu that it onlg perteitl,s to n ciuil tlispute betlueen the piuate parties and it does n,-tt ittclude an institrLtional sale under a stcttute. Thouglt Sectiort 64 comes irtto plag onlg after tlrc alienation of the propertll under attnchment amongst ttLe priuate persons, the said legal positi.on does not create an embargo trpott the l?egistrar to proceed tuith the registration of sale ozrliftcates Lurder tltt: SARFhESI Act as the bank is not a pelA to the suit an.d lhe sale is not being effected bg a paftg lo the attachrtott. order.

12. In sim ctr circumstances, the Kerala High Cot,ft iL The South Indiant Bank Ltd. u. The Sub Registrar (3) VrP (C) No. 3875 of 2017 dated 24.11.2016, considered th<' quesriort ushether a sale cetlificate is liable to be registerecl or rtctt in t'ieu of th.e order of attachment before judgment 1-tassed bt1 the ciuil Ctourt and held that the secured creditor i.s entitled to procee'd utith th-e registration and the Registration Authoity cannot stall the pro(Ess of registration u.nder the gorb of an. order of attachment passed bg the ciuil ()ourt." 7 SK, J W.P.No.14893 of 2025 The above said finding of the Division Bench of this Court would squarely apply to tl-re instant case and the Iiegistration Authority cannot stali the process ol registration of the sale ccrtillcate in view of the :rttachment order.

10. In the instant case also, the petitioner-Bank by follorving the procedure under SARFAESI Act conductecl auction for the subject propert-v and sale certilicatc has to be issued in favour ol the Auction Purchaser. ln vielv ol the settled law, thc respondent authorities have r-ro power to refi-.rse the registration of the sale certihcatc under SARFAESI Act on the grouncl of attachment orders of the Civil Court or other authorities for the I ! same property. In vierv of the same, the Registering Authority has to register the sale certificate to be issued by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser without taking into account of the attachment rrrder dated 30.12.2O2O in I.A.No.233 oi 2O2O in ARB.CF.No.323 of 2020 passed by the respondent No.3. 8 sK.,'l W.P.No. 14893 of 2025

11. In vicu, of the above findings, the Wrir. Petition is disposed ol directing the Registering Authority to register the sale ccrtificate to be issued by the petitioner-Bank ir.r favour of' the Auction Purchaser as per the ltrovisions o[ SARFAtrSI --\ct n,ithout refercnce to the r\ttachment Orcler dalcd 30.12.2O2O in I.A.No.233 ol 2O2O in ARB.CIr.No.323 of 2020 passed by the respondent No.3

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 'l'helc s1-rall bc no order as to costs. i3. Miscellerneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stancl closecl I ! To, /iTRUE COPY// SD/.MOiID. ISMAIL DEPUTY' REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat. Hyderabad. State of Telangana, 2 The Sub Registrar. SRO Kapra, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3 The Chit Arbitrator cum Deputy Registrar of Chits, Erragadda. Hyoerabad (South ). Hyderabad. Telangana. 4 M/s. lVlargadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, 5-10-195, Fateh Maidan Road. Opp. Police Control Room, Hyderabad 5000Ca. 5 One CC to SRI HETUANTH KUMAR VEMURI Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRI P DURGA PRASAD, SC FOR CHITS 7 Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION ,Hiqh Ccurt tor the State of Telangana [OUT] 8 Two CD Copies I'VI I]S HIGH COTJRT DATED:0910912025 I a) ET 4L .P + o,l (I .$ .s \ v ;) I ti- i .E ORDER WP.No.14893 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS h1@ N 1w u