State Bank of India v. consequen'y direct the

Petition under section '151 cPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit fired rn support of the petition, the High coul may be preased to direct the Respondent No.2 herein to register the S ale certificate daled 27 05.2024 issued under sARFAEST Act by the petitioner n hich rs assigned wrth pending document No 225/2024 in the office of sub-Rerlistrar chikkadpary, rerating to Residentrar Buirding bearing H No.2-1-444112 erdmeasuring 4.r9 sq. yards situated at New Narakunta, near Vegetabre Market, osmania University Road, Hyderabad S0OO44 belonging to Sri. B. Suresh Lumar S/o Late D. Ekambaram and Smt. pranitha wife of Late Suresh Kumar covered under Sale Deed no 702ti999 dated 22.03.1ggg, sale deed no which are in ravou'or D Suresh Kumar and .r," ;'"tJ'J:-1#t::iJ;lt.ltll 2303 1999 and sare deed no.10g1/19gg dated 06.05.1999 which are in favor Smt. D Pranitha wife of D. Suresh Kumar during pendency of ryrit petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI A.KRISHNAM RAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.i to 3 : AGp FOR REVENUE counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI J.v.pRASAD (NONE APPEARED) The Court made the following ORDER I a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.2L6O7 OF 2o24 ORDER: Heard Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, iearned Counsel lor the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the officia-l respondents and perused the materiai on record.

2. None appeared on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4

3. Learned Counsel for thc petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.2 vide letter No.321lSRO/CHKP/2024, dated 11.O7.2024 intimating refusa-l of the pending Doc No i.e., Certihcate of Sa-le dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Writ Petitioner in respect of Residential Building Bearing H.No.2-l-444 / 12, admeasuring 419 square yards, situated at New Nallakunta, near Vegetable Market, Osmania Universilr t c SK,J W.l' No.215O7 of 2O24 Road, Hyderabad for which auction was conducted on

28.O2.2Oi',4 by Petitioner Bank under SARFAIfSI Act is arbitrary, illega1 and contrar1i to law and in violation of Registrati,rn Act and requested to direct t-re Respondent No.2 to register the Sale Certificate dat,:d 27.O5.2024 pending [)ocument No.225 12024 issued by the Petitioner- Bank

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner hirthcr submits that the impugned order passed on the ground that the attachment order was issued by the Income Ta-x Department under Rule 688 of the Second Slchedule o[ the Income Tax Act is in force. The petitionter-Bank had executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on

31.08.2019 and as on that date, there is no valid provisional attachment against the suit scherdule property. Thereafter, the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 cirne into force lrom O1 .O9.2019. The respondents basing cn the new Act has treating the attachment period upto severr (7) years and 3 SK,J W.P.No.21607 of 2024 passed impugned order. The said contention ol the respondents is not valid as on the date of execution of the document between the petitioner and the borrower on 3i.08.2019, there is no valid provisional attachment as per Rule 688 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and the regstering authority has to register the document presented by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the auction purchaser under SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and requested to al1ow the writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel lor the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the Judgments in:

1. Sapana Chqrudatt Ranadiae tt' Assistcnt Commissioner of Income Tax qnd otherst I 2019 SCC onliae Bom 13163 ) :--\. 'l 4 SK,J W.t' tto.2l607 of 2024

2. Commissioner of Income Tax and another u S.V.Gopala Rao and others2

6. LezLrned Assistant Government Plearler for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter sr-Lbmits that the impugnecl property D.No.2-1-144112 ll, I'Iallakunta OU Road, Hy,lerabad was attached by the Tax Rcr:overy Officer IV, Hyderabad as per Form No.lTCP-16 urrdt:r F.No.TRO- 4 I SR-2s2t. / 246 / PAN :AtroPD7880R/ AAECP 1 )37 D I 1 4- 1 5, dated 16.12.2014. The schedule property is; prohibited for registration. In view of the same, the.irrpugned orders passed b1' the registering authority under St:ction 71 of the Registraticn Act, 1908. The petitioner ap$roached this Court witnout availing remedy under Section 72 of ttre AcI, 1908 and the writ petition is not majntainable and requested to clismiss the writ petition. ta 7. The respondent No.4 hled counter denying the averments made by the petitioner but in spi,.e of listing the 2 l2ot8l 13 SCC 189 5 SK,J W.P.No.21607 of 2024 matter for hearing before this Court, on 01.04.2025 there was no representation for the respondent No.4, therefore the matter was directed to be listed after two weeks i.e',

15.O4.2025. On 15.04.2025, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 sought time to get instructions with regard to the amendment of Section 688 of Income Tax Act, 196I. Thereafter the matter was listed on 29.04-2025,

24.06.2025, Oa.O7.2025 and there was no representation for the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. This matter was heard by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on O8.O7.2025 and the matter was listed under the caption "For Orders". In spite of listing the matter for orders, none appeared for the learned Standing Counsel for rdspondent No.4 on 22.O7.2025 and todaY also.

8. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record. this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner-Bank lor registration of document on the ground that the \ 6 SK,J W.P. {o.21607 of 2O2a property was within Provisional Attachment order issued by thc Income Tax Department under Section 222 (l) of Income Tax Act on 16.12-20\4. The conrention of the petitioner-Bank is that as per Rule 688 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act and tlLe Provisional Attachment has been expired on 16.12 '2017 ' The petitioner-Bank has sanctioned credit lacility in the form of Cash Credit of Rs.5,O5,OO,O0O/- to M/s Pa'lma trlectrical Agencies on 27 .11 .2018 and the petitior:er Bank has created arr equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds as a security for the aforementioned credit facility amounting Rs.SOS.OO Lakhs in the form o[ Memorandure,of Deposit of Title Deeds on 31.08.2O19. The Finance (No.2) Act, 20 19 came into lorce from O1.O9.2019 and enhancing limitation for sale of attached property under Rule 688 of the Second Schedule ,rf the Income Tax Act extended from three years to seven t/ears In the instant case, the petitioner-Bank created an equitable mortgage on 31.0r1.2O19 before SKJ W. P.No.21607 of 2024 commencement ol Finance (No.2) Act, 2Ol9 i.e., on Ol.O9.2Ol9. In view of the same, the Provisional Attachment issued by the respondent No.4 in F.No.TRO- 4 ISR-2521246lPAN:AEOPD7S8OR/ AAECP 1037D / t4-15, dated 16.12.2014 was expired on 16.72.2017. The petitioner-Bank issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 on 04.12.2021 and conducted public auction and sale confirmation was issued to the auction purchaser on 29.02.2024 and sale certihcate was also issued on 27.05.2024. ln view of the same, the Registering AuLhorities have to register the sale certificate issued by the petitioner-Bank and the impugned refusal endorsement is liable to be set aside

9. Thc Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for thc petitioner 1n Srrpana Chqntdatt Ranadiue u Assistcrnt Commissioner of Income Tax and others (Supra-l) and Commissioner of Income Tax and I I I I a SK,J 14 .P No.21607 of 2024 q.nother u. S.V.Gopala Rao and others (Supra-2) squarely apply to the instant case

10. In view of the above findings, the u,rit petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned end,rrsement issued by the responden[ No.2 in Letter No.321/SFIO/CHKp/2024, dated 1 1 .O7.2024 and direct the responrient-Registering Authorities t o register the sale certihcate issued by the petitionet'-Bank lor the suit schedule prope-tv. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pend t-rg in this Writ Petition shall also stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// I SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER tate of Telangana at Hvderabad

1. The Secretary, Stamps and Registration' Secretariat\ 2. T# S;;:R"gistrar. Chikkadpally Hyderabad District- 500200 3 in! 5,ttti"t R"giitirt oiit'i& iijgisirar offrce' Hvder;rbad District 4. The Tax Recovery oni#'iiVl, l"n""orn" t" Departmerrt Govt of lndia' Ayakar s. i*l'6it o 6l,l"cCi" dnrn knrsHrunM RAJU, Advocate^[oPU3] i o;; cc to snr J V PRASAD Advocate (oPUc) B. Two CD tloptes tl, Cp f On REVENUE' High Court for the sitate of Telangana at Bhavan, HYderabad Hvderabad [OUT] \ To SA BS HIGH COURT DATED:0 StOBt2O2S ORDER WP.No.21607 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. L? l,r<, t la' '-' --, 7,/.!or'^ ^'' sl-4 14: I 11sEPffi 1l t 06,,'r 16r.tEu * \l ( ( > (,_-l.t. a