JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following relief:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the respondent-Sales Tax authority (at ANNEXURE-H hereto) as well as Entry No. 15744 mutated in the revenue record for the properties in question (at ANNEXURE-I hereto).

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondent Sub-Registrar to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the petitioner dated 11.03.2022 (at ANNEXURE-P hereto) and further pleased to direct the respondent-Mamlatdar to mutate entry of such registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner fro the properties in question.

(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the respondent-Sales Tax authority (at ANNEXURE-H hereto) as well as Entry No. 15744 mutated in the revenue record for the properties in question (at ANNEXURE-I hereto) and further be pleased to direct the respondent Sub-Registrar to register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the petitioner dated 11.03.2022 (at ANNEXURE-P hereto).

(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be though just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The subject matter of dispute in the present litigation is a parcel of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 1521 (Old Revenue Survey No. 785/1/P/1) situated at Mouje: Rajpur, Ta. Kadi, Dist: Mehsana. This land was originally owned by M/s. Paras Bhavani Steel Private Limited. It appears that M/s. Paras Bhavani Steel Private Limited had availed financial facilities of a huge amount from the respondent No. 2-Bank of Baroda. The Company defaulted in repayment of the loan amount. In such circumstances, the bank proceeded to recover the loan amount from the Company by initiating the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Ultimately, the subject land was put to auction by the bank. In the said auction, the writ applicant participated and was declared as the highest bidder. The sale came to be finalized and a sale deed also came to be executed by the bank in favour of the writ applicant. The final sale certificate was also issued in favour of the writ applicant.

3. It is not in dispute that the charge over the subject land was created by way of a secured mortgage in favour of the bank wayback some time in 2012-13. Thus, the subject land was a secured assets in hands of the bank in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

4. The Company simultaneously incurred liability towards the VAT. In such circumstances, the Company was assessed for two F.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18. Two assessment orders came to be passed on 04.11.2021 and 13.11.2021 respectively. The subject land came to be attached by the respondent No. 3, Sales Tax Officer vide order dated 19.01.2022.

5. The writ applicant is here before this Court as the Mamlatdar has declined to mutate the entry of the sale transaction in the Revenue Records. The Mamlatdar declined on the premise that the State has the first charge over the subject land as it has to recover a particular amount towards tax from the Company.

6. We have heard Mr. Arpit Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondents.

7. It also appears that although the Sub-Registrar has registered the sale deed yet the sale deed has not been released on account of the claim of the State over the subject land.

8. What came to be purchased by the writ applicant in the auction proceedings conducted by the