ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the unilateral execution and registration of two deeds of cancellation dated 05.09.2011 by which a certificate of sale issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was cancelled without notice etc.

2. This case raises some interesting questions for decision.

3. Petitioners are the successful bidders in an auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The State Bank of India, Chirala filed O.A.No.62 of 2009 against a defaulting borrower for recovery of the money due. The Tribunal decreed the O.A., and issued a certificate for recovery of the sum due. The certificate was transmitted to the Recovery Officer, who exercised the powers conferred on him by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. He brought the property to sale in an auction held on 18.10.2010. The petitioners were the highest bidders for items 2 and 3 of the auction held on 18.01.2021. The sale was confirmed in their favour. An order of confirmation was also given in favour of the petitioners. The sale certificates were also registered on 29.01.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners came to know that unilateral deeds of cancellation bearing Nos.4127 and 4128 of 2011 were executed by the District Collector, Ongole and the same were also registered. Questioning the said registration of the unilateral deeds on various grounds, the present writ petition is filed.

4. For the petitioners Sri G.Ramesh argued the matter at great length. He put in a lot of effort to explain to the Court the provisions of the Acts that are applicable and the legal position. He also gave a compilation of case law.

5. The sum and substance of the learned counsel’s submission is that (1) no notice was issued to the petitioners before the documents were cancelled (2) Rule 26(1)(k)(i) of the A.P. Rules under Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Rules) on which the State relies is not applicable and the same was relied upon for cancelling the deeds. (3) Unilateral cancellation of the sale certificates is not valid under law; (4) Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993) and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) (for short “the SARFAESI Act) are Special Acts enacted by the Parliament and their provisions will prevail over the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the POT Act”) enacted by the State. (5) Lastly, a three year period is fixed by judicial interpretation of the Rule before which an assignment can be cancelled and in this case, the same expired long ago. Learned counsel relies upon the compilation of judgments to argue that the entire action is vitiated.

6. In reply to this, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, very detailed submissions are made by the Government Pleader for Revenue. According to him, the lands which are the subject matter of the certificate of sale are “assigned” lands. These assigned lands were sold in the year 2005-2006 by the original assignees. It is therefore submitted that the initial transfer by the assignee to one Karna Nagalingam is opposed to the POT Act. A show cause notice was also issued and it is stated that after considering the issues, the possession of the lands were also taken back. The appeal filed by the said K.Nagalingam before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order of the Tahsildar was also dismissed. K.Nagalingam also made an application for issuance of No Objection Certificate for transfer of the land, but the same was also rejected by the Government. Questioning the same, WP.No.26391 of 2010 was filed. But in the interim period, the said K.Nagalingam sold some part of the land and also mortgaged another part to State Bank of India. Thereafter, the property was brought to sale by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the same was purchased by the petitioners. The contention of the learned Government Ple