Point of law: mortgage was created by the assessee much before a demand was made under Rule 2 and even before an order of assessment was passed voidity under Section 281(1) is not automatic, the petitioner-bank deserves to succeed.

JUDGMENT :

Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. Since the cause of action for these two writ petitions is the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two cases by way of this common order.

2. M/s. ABC Engineering Works, respondent No. 9 in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019, availed credit facilities from State Bank of India, respondent No. 1 in the said writ petition. In view of the default committed by the said company in payment of the loan amount, the Bank invoked the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act') and conducted sale of the following properties, by way of e-auction on 14.6.2017 and 16.6.2017.

(i) Ac. 0.13 cents out of Ac. 0.56 cents with two storied R.C.C. building (D. No. 9-264) in R.S. No. 2197 of Kanur Village, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District;

(ii) Ac. 0.13 cents out of Ac. 0.56 cents with two storied R.C.C. building (D. No. 9-264) in R.S. No. 2197 of Kanur Village, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District;

(iii) Ac. 0.50-1/2 cents with one storied R.C.C. building and A.C. sheet roof shed, in R.S. No. 239/7 (D. No. 8-181) of Kanur Village, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District.

In the said auctions, one Sri Madala Narendra Kumar and Smt. Chadalavada Mamatha emerged as successful bidders for item Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 9,26,00,000/-, and petitioners in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019 became successful bidders for item No. 3 for Rs. 13,61,00,000/-. Thereafter, the sales were confirmed and the Bank issued sale certificates also in favour of the successful bidders, including the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019. Subsequently, on the request made by the auction purchasers, the Bank authorities submitted the sale documents before the Sub-Registrar, Patamata, Vijayawada, Krishna District (respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019 and respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 44211 of 2017).

Vide proceedings TRC 283 & 284/AAFFA7383K/TRO/VJA/2016-17, dated 13.10.2017, the Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax, Vijayawada (2nd respondent in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019), prohibited transfer of the said properties on the ground that the borrower M/s. ABC Engineering Works failed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,51,27,117/- and communicated copy of the said proceedings to the Sub-Registrar, Patamata. The Sub-Registrar, Patamata, vide Letter C. No. 1/2017, dated 20.10.2017, informed State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Secunderabad (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44211 of 2017), that the request for registration of the sale documents in respect of the subject properties, cannot be considered, while referring to the proceedings of the Tax Recovery Officer dated 13.10.2017 and the instructions of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps vide Circular Memo No. G3/12238/2014, dated 7.9.2015.

3. Counter-affidavits have been filed by the Income Tax authorities, revenue authorities and M/s. ABC Engineering Works.

4. Heard Sri G.L.V. Ramana Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44211 of 2017; Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019; Sri P. Subhash, learned Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps; Smt. M. Kiranmayee, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department and Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 9 in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019 and Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned Counsel for respondent No. 10 in Writ Petition No. 20988 of 2019, apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. It is contended by Sri G.L.V. Ramana Murthy and Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, who are sailing together, obviously for the same relief, that the Circular Memo dated 7.9.2015 of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, on which heavy reliance is sought to be placed by the Sub-Registrar, cannot be made applicable, and Clause (8) of the said Circular cannot be pressed