High Court · 2025

tr,j::Ir'j?:,i8 2. The Sub Registrar _ Jagtial, Dharoor Camp, Jagtial, Telangana 505455. 3. Mr. Vanamala Sudhakar r, s ta m p s a n d Reve n u e Business,Ry;Hri;;t6ti8ilJ;Bl,?il?3iig?rrT:l,H!;;.,"ior%#if:,o". i,.,"rff:: ' yl:lar::: SilH,^rj;j,.,1*,,,1;,l,ii3 ; i ",#;:?j T J;,J#?,, o pp H e a d .....RESPONDENTS petition Under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ' order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the Respondents in not considering the representation, dated 11-11-2024 submitted by the petitioner Bank to register the Sare certificate issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the Auction purchaser as viorative of section 6g (3) of the chit Funds Act, 1982 apan from being whory arbitrary, iilegar and viorative of Articres 14 and 16 0f the constitution of rndia and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to register the Sale certificate, dated 11. 06 2024 issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the Auction purchaser. l.A.NO:1 oF 2024 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 2nd Respondent to consider the Representation dated 11'11'2024 submitted by the Petitioner duly taking into account rule position provided under Sec 68(3) of the Chit Fund Act'1982' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI Counsel for the Respondent Nos'l & 2 : AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos'3 & 4 : SRI CH'VIDYA SAGAR The Court made the following ORDER THE HO N'BLE SRT JUSTICE K. TH WRI PETI T TIONNo.35973 ot 2024 oR-t)ER: Iearned Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Assistant Government pleader for Stamps arrd Registration and learned counsel for the respondent No.4 artd perused the materia_l on record. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner-Bank dated lLIl.2O24 to register the Sa-le certificate issued by the petitioner Barrk in favour of the Auction purchaser in violation of Section 6g(3) of the Chit Funds Act, section 31(B) of SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 as illegal and arbitrary. I9g2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s. V.S. Constructions and Developers has availed multiple credit facilities from the petitioner_Bank in the year, 2OI8 ald the Respondent No.3 being one of the Partners in the said partnership firm, has mortgaged a \ I .- \I 2 SK, J W.P.No 35973 of 2024 !.1 buitding property bearing H'No'6-6-203 and 6-6-204' situatedatPadmaNagar,Jagtialwiththepetitioner- Bank by depositing the original title deeds' Due to persistent default in repayment of loan due' the petitioner-Bank has initiated action under SARFAESI Act for sale of the mortgaged property' After unsuccessful attempts' the petitioner-Balk issued sale notice dated' Og'll'2023 and conducted auction on 29.11.2023, wherein one Mr' Balmuri Sandeep Rao was declared AS successful bidder for the amount of Rs.1,45,60,000/- and after Pa5'ment of entire auctton bid amount, the petitioner-Bank issued sale certificate on 11.O6.2024 in his favour' When the petitioner-Bank has approached the respondent No'2-Sub-Registrar for registration of the said sale certiircate' the respondent No.2 refused to receive the said document on the pretext that the property is und'er attachment by virtue of the attachment order dated 23'02'2023 issued by the Chit Fund Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits' Karimnagar' I r' 3 w.p.N,.osszs or?51/

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.2 is contrarSr to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg tlnion Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, ped.dapalti and. Ors.,t ;lr1fl the same is folrowed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.38125 of 2Ot8 dated 14.1O.2019 and requested to direct the respondent No.2 to register the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Stamps ald Registration, basing on the counter hled by respondent No.2, submits that as the respondent No.3 has tailed to pay future installments to the chit fund company, attachment order was passed for the properer of the respondent No.3 ald the propertSr was in the rist of prohibited properties. He submits the respondent No.2 has received a letter dated 12. IL2O24 from the petitioner-Bank to register the sale certificate, but they have not presented the sare certificate for processing and if the petitioner Bank presented the sa-le 'zors 1s1 nLt 2ZS 4 SK, J W.P.No-35973 of 2024 certificate, action will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act'

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration further submits that though the sale certifrcate was issued under SARFAESI Act' it cannot be registered, as the property involved in the sale certifrcate is already in prohibited list on the website of the IGRS and requested to dismiss the writ petition'

7. After hearing both sid'es and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the sale certihcate issued by the petitioner-bank to the auction purchaser for registrationofthesuitschedulepropertyaSper SARFAESI Act. The respondent No'3 has mortgaged the loan availed by subject property for M/s.V.S.Constructions and Developers' The petitioner by following the procedure contemplated under SARFAESI Act conducted auction for the suit schedule property and issued sale certificate in favour of auction pd..h.""r. Now, the respondent No'2 refused to register tir,t - .i ',/. - 5 SK, J W-P.No.35973 of 2024 the sale certiflcate on the ground that there is attachment Order on the suit schedule property and until the salne is vacated, it cannot be possible to register the sale certificate dated 11.06.2024 issued in favour of the auction purchaser. The said contention of respondent No.2 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in Citg tlnion Bank Limited. ys Sub Registrar, Peddapalli a.nd Ors. (supra l).

8. The relevant portion of the Judgment in City llnion Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, pedd.apatti q.nd Ors. (supra f/ is as follows: "8. It is needless to obserue that the ciuil Court has no juisdiction to deal uith subject matters peiiiing to tf,e SARFAESI Act. In the present scenaio, thi secured. creditor u)as not a partA to the ciuil suits before the Courts below ,thus the orders of attachment bifore jud.gment are not otnatnq on tne secured creditor/ Bank. More so, tLe cause of action before the Courts belout i,s not utithin tle ambit if SARFAESIAcT. ,^0:!p?? f1* reading of S.O. 219 in the tight of Section 64 of C:C, thi: Court is of the uieu that it onll peiati to a ciuil dispute betuteen the piuate parties ond- ii does not include an institutional sale under a statute. Tttough Section 64 comes into plag onlg after the alienation ol the propertg under attachment amonqst the piuate p"r'rorr", the said. legat position does noi creati an "^borgo upon the Registrar to proceed u.tith the registration of site certificates under the S,4RIAESI Act as tl.Le bank is iot a partg to the suit and the sale is not being effected bg a partg to the attachment order. _ .-. ' .. \ SK, J W.P.No.35973 of 2021 \

12.InsimilarctrcLLmstances,theKeralaHigh.CourtinThe iiuth Ind.ian Bank Ltd' u' Tie Sttb Registrar (3) WP (C) No' "sb7i" .i'zotz dated. 24'11'2o16' considered the question *t*1t*, a sale certificate is liable to be registered or not in Ji..* if ri" order of attachment before judgme.nt passed by iii .iiiL Court and held. thot the secured creditor is entitled ,,. ir....a uith the registration Registrotion under the a"{n"riii i""not stall the"proccss of ';;;;-.i;" -ond . :to., -registration order of attachient passed bg the ciuil Court " The above said' Iinding of the Division Bench of this Court would squarely apply to the instant case and the Registration Authority cannot stall the process of registration of the petitioner-bank in view of the attachment orders. In the instant case also, the petitioner-bank by g. following the SARFAESI Act conducted amction for the suit schedule property and issued sale certihcate in favour of the auction purchaser' In view of the settled law, the respondent authorities have no power to refuse the registration of the sale certificate under SARFAESI Act on the ground of attachment orders of the Civil CourtorotherauthoritiesfortheSalneproperty.Inview of the same, the Registering Authority has to register the sale certihcate issued by the petitioner-Bank in favour of 7 SK, J W.P.No.35973 of 2024 the auction purchaser without taking into account of the attachment order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Chit Fund Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar in I.A.No.S of 2023 in ARB No.724 of 2022.

10. In view of the above hndings, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2-Sub-Registrar to register the Sale Certihcate dated LL.06.2024 presented by the petitioner-Bank 1n favour of the auction purchaser as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act without reference to the Attachment Order dated 23.02.2023 in I.A.No.S of 2023 in ARB No.Z24 of 2022 passed by the Chit Fund Arbitrator/Deput5r Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar. No order as to costs.

11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD Ury REGISTRAR To ECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secreta ry, Stamps and Revenue De partment, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyde rabad, Telangana The Sub Registrar - Jagtial, Dharoor Camp, Jagtial, Telangana 505455. One CC to SRI H EMANTH KUMAR VEMURI Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI CH.VIDYA SAGAR, Advocate (oPUC) Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, Hi Hyderabad. [OUTI gh Court for the State of Telangana at 2 J 4 6

6. Two CD Copies SA GJP i; ba*_= -A\ ,l 1HF- S14y € oe( :l i ': 1E TUB N6 i l, HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.35973 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.