JUDGMENT :

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under :-

The case of the petitioner is that he is a businessman and he participated in a bank auction conducted by respondent No.5 under the provisions of SARFAESI ACT 2002, in respect of land and building, details of which are given in para-1 of the petition. Respondent No.5 declared the account of one Shri Mohan Singh Guleria, operating in the name and style of M/S Silvermoon Motors Pvt. Ltd. as NPA and auctioned the above mentioned property under the SARFAESI ACT. The sale certificate was issued in favour of petitioner being the highest bidder in respect of the property auctioned in issue. The grievance of the petitioner enumerates from Annexure P-3, in terms whereof the petitioner has been called upon to register the sale certificate with the Registration Authority.

2. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 745, titled B. Arvind Kumar Versus Govt. of India and Others. He has referred to question number-2, as stands framed in para-8 of said judgment and answer thereto as stands contained in para-12 of the judgment and by placing reliance upon the same, he has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to settle the issue at hand by holding that now when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer of the Court is contemplated or required. On the strength of this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner submits that this writ petition be allowed and respondents be directed not to give effect to Annexure P-3 and to recognize the sale certificate, which has been issued in his favour by respondent No.5.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the response filed to the petition by the State, submits that inconsonance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, all non-testamentary documents which purport or operate to create any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of more than one hundred rupees, are to be compulsorily registered and it is in this view of the statutory provisions of the Registration Act that the petitioner is being called upon to do the needful.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as the judgment referred to by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that as the petitioner has purchased the property in issue through an auction which was held under the provisions of the SARFAESI ACT, his case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Arvind Kumar’s case (supra) and he cannot be called upon to register the sale certificate.

5. Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act provides that the documents have to be registered, if the property to which they relate, is situated in a district in which the provisions of the Indian Registration Act are applicable. Sub-section (2) of the said Section, which starts with a non-obstetric clause, provides that nothing in Clause ‘B’ and ‘C’ of sub-section (1) shall, inter alia, apply to any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer. This is specifically contained in sub-clause (xii) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Arvind Kumar’s case (supra) has taken into consideration the statutory provisions of Section 17 (1) as also Section 17 (2) (xii) of the Registration Act,1908, while holding that when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour and as the sale certificate is issued, evidencing such sale and title, then no further deed of transfer from the Court is contemplated or required.

6. In this view of the matt