Point of Law: There cannot be any doubt that the rights of a secured creditor to realize the debts due and payable by sale of assets over which security interest is created, would have priority over all the debts.

ORDER :

C.Praveen Kumar, J.

1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not receiving and not registering the sale certificate issued by the petitioner-Bank under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’) in respect of the property in dispute, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Ms.V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Government Pleader for Revenue on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As notices sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due were not received by the unofficial respondents, a paper publication was given informing about the filing of case and date on which the case is likely to be taken up. In spite of the same, there is no representation on behalf of the unofficial respondents.

3. The circumstances, which lead to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

(i) The 3rd respondent herein offered the premises bearing residential building bearing D.No.1/46 admeasuring 77.77 Square Yards in Survey No.137/2A situated at Pendekanti Nagar, near Andhra Bank, Banaganapalli, Kurnool District, as security to the petitioner-Bank for repayment of personal term loan of Rs.10,00,000/- sanctioned to him.

4. It is stated that the 3rd respondent availed credit facilities from the Petitioner Bank and as security for repayment, the 3rd respondent deposited registered sale deed of the property referred to above and also connected documents in respect of the said property and created a mortgage over the said property. The 2nd respondent also confirmed the creation of the mortgage vide registered memorandum of deposit of title deed No.1549 of 2017 dated 17.06.2017, which came to be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Banaganapalli.

5. As the 3rd respondent committed default in payment of dues, in accordance with the agreed terms, the account of the 3rd respondent was classified as NPA and accordingly, the procedure under SARFAESI Act was invoked for recovery of the amount. A demand notice dated 05.08.2019, Section 13(2) possession notice and also a sale notice fixing the date of auction on 19.08.2020 was issued and the bid was knocked down at Rs.26,55,000/- in favour of one Smt.T.Lakshmi Devi. The auction purchaser is said to have deposited the entire sale proceeds.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner Bank filed Crl.MP No.70 of 2020 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, for taking physical possession of the secured asset. By an order dated 15.07.2020, an advocate commissioner was appointed for taking physical possession of the property. A sale certificate was issued in favour of the successful bidder and the said successful bidder approached the 2nd respondent for ascertaining the stamp duty and the registration charges payable basing on the certificate of sale etc. It was informed to the auction purchaser that the property cannot be registered as an order came to be passed by a civil Court in I.A.No.292 of 2019 in O.S.No.64 of 2019, in I.A.No.306 of 2019 in O.S.No.68 of 2019 and in I.A.No.290 of 2019 in O.S.No.63 of 2019, attaching the properties in dispute.

7. The averments in the affidavit show that the petitioner herein addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent informing that the petitioner is a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act and the property came to be sold in auction under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and as such, the 2nd respondent cannot deny registration of the property.

8. Reply came to be issued by the 2nd respondent reiterating the stand taken earlier.

9. Challenging the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent, present writ petition came to be filed.

10. Ms.V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue is no more resintegra and is covered by the orders passed by this Court. Referring Sectio