The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26932 of 2024 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) …. Petitioner Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Cuttack represented by its Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager at Sector 7 CDA, Cuttack -versus- District Sub Registrar, Officer, Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Subrat Misra, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel. for O.Ps.1 & 2 Mr. S. S. Kanungo, Advocate. for O.P.3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :28.02.2025 :: Date of Judgment :12.03.2025 A.C. Behera, J. The petitioner (Bank of Baroda) being represented through its Authorized Officer-cum-Chief Manager at Sector-7 Branch, CDA, Cuttack has filed this writ petition against the opposite parties praying for quashing the letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5) issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (opposite party No.1). W.P.(C) No.26932 of 2024 Page 1 of 5 2. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act, 2002) along with the rules thereof as well as Banking Rules and Procedures, the petitioner- Bank sold the mortgaged properties through an e-auction to the opposite party No.3 on dated 10.09.2024 as per certificate of sale (Annexure-1) and forwarded a copy of the said sale certificate to the Registering Officer (opposite party No.1) to be filed in Book No.1 of its office as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. As per letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5), the opposite party No.1 refused to make necessary entries of the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 assigning the reasons in the said Annexure-5 that, “as the Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal in I.A. No.168 of 2023 (arising out of C.S. No.482 of 2023) has ordered on dated 30.11.2023 not to change the nature and character of the I.A. schedule property till disposal of the original suit vide C.S. No.482 of 2023 and as the property noted in the sale certificate has been included in Lot-1 of the schedule of property of the I.A., as such, the property has been blocked for any transaction. Therefore, necessary entries of the sale certificate in Book No.1 could not be made. The sale certificate is lying pending in this office till the matter is resolved.” To which, the petitioner-Bank has challenged that Annexure-5 by filing this writ petition. W.P.(C) No.26932 of 2024 Page 2 of 5 3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner- Bank, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party No.3. 4. On the basis of the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the question arises, whether during the pendency of the civil suit and I.A., in which, the petitioner is not a party and on the basis of status quo order passed in I.A. in respect of the auctioned properties involved in the sale certificate, the refusal of the District Sub-Registrar (opposite party No.1) as per Annexure-5 to file the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 of his office is sustainable under law? 5. Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 clarifies that, “every officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1.” 6. On conjoint reading to the Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is going to show that, a copy of the sale certificate is to be forwarded by the Bank to the local Sub-Registrar after completion of sale through auction for filing of the said copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 of the local registration office and the local Sub- Registrar cannot refuse/deny for filing of the same in Book No.1 of the W.P.(C) No.26932 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 Registration Office, for no other reason, but as per law, for preservation of a record relating to the concerned auction sale in the said local Registration Office of the Government. Because, the filing of the copy of the sale certificate in the Book No.1 of the local Registration Office becomes the records in the local Registration Office of the Government. 7. On this aspect, it has been clarified by the Apex Court in a case between The State of Punjab and Anr. Vrs. M/s. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. & Ors. decided on 19.11.2024 reported in 2025 (1) Civil Court Cases 001 (S.C.) (at Para 20) that, as long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. 8. When, as per law, the copy of the sale certificate dated 10.09.2024 was forwarded by the petitioner-Bank after completion of auction sale to the District Sub-Registrar (opposite party No.1) only for filing the same in Book No.1 as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, but not for registration and when, the copy of the sale certificate is not compulsorily registrable, as the same is not a sale deed, then at this juncture, the opposite party No.1 should not have refused to file the same in the Book No.1 of his office only on the ground of pendency of the civil suit and passing of status quo order in an I.A., in which, the petitioner was not a party. For which, the refusal made by the opposite party No.1 through his letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5) for filing of the copy of W.P.(C) No.26932 of 2024 Page 4 of 5 the sale certificate in Book No.1 of his office forwarded by the petitioner- Bank cannot be sustainable under law. So, there is justification under law for quashing Annexure-5 issued by the opposite party No.1 to the petitioner through this writ petition filed by the petitioner-Bank. 9. As such, there is merit in the writ petition of the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 10. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. The letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5) issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (opposite party No.1) to the petitioner is quashed and opposite party No.1 is directed to file the copy of the sale certificate dated 10.09.2024 forwarded by the petitioner-Bank in Book No.1 of his office and to comply the consequential formalities thereof as per law after filing of the same in Book No.1.
Decision
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 12.03.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-Mar-2025 10:38:47 W.P.(C) No.26932 of 2024 Page 5 of 5