The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale certificate presented for filing in Book-I under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act does not need to be stamped or registered, as distinguished from the requirement for stamping and registration when presented for registration.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 08.11.2021 made in W.P.No.34249 of 2018.

Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 19.11.2021 made in W.P.No.6657 of 2018.)

Common Judgment:

N. Mala, J.

These Writ Appeals are filed challenging the orders dated 08.11.2021 and 19.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.34249 and 6657 of 2018. The said writ petitions were filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Notification No.142/2018 and 253/2017 dated 07.08.2018 and 06.03.2018 respectively and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondent to file the sale certificates dated 21.08.2017 and 29.04.2017, sent by the second respondent under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. The short background of facts leading to the present writ appeals are as follows:

2(i) The first respondent in W.A.No.633 of 2022 is the successful bidder of the sale notice scheduled properties, which were brought to sale by the second respondent. The first respondent's bid was confirmed for Rs.3,41,00,000/- (Three Crore Forty One Lakhs) by the sale confirmation order dated 26.07.2017. After due completion of all the formalities a sale certificate was issued to the first respondent under Section 9(6) of the SARFAESI Act, confirming the sale in its favour. Thereafter, the second respondent requested the appellant to file the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 in Book I. The appellant issued the impugned order dated 07.08.2018 rejecting the second respondent's request for filing the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 by directing the first respondent to pay stamp duty of Rs.25,56,050/-and Registration fee of Rs.14,60,600/-. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 07.08.2018, the first respondent filed the writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 07.08.2018 and consequently to direct the appellant to file the sale certificate dated 21.08.2017 sent by the second respondent under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.

2(ii) The first respondent in W.A.No.1503 of 2022 is the successful bidder of the sale notice scheduled properties, which were brought to sale by the second respondent. The first respondent was the highest bidder having bid for Rs.60,25,00,000/- (Rupees sixty crore twenty five lakh only) and hence the sale was confirmed in its favour and the sale certificate was issued under Section 9(6) of the SARFAESI Act, confirming the sale in favour of the first respondent. Thereafter the second respondent requested the appellant to file the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 in Book I. The appellant issued the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 rejecting the second respondent's request for filing the sale certificate. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 02.06.2017, the first respondent filed the writ petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in notification No.253/2017 dated 06.03.2018 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondent to file the sale certificate dated 29.04.2017, sent by the second respondent under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.

2(iii) The learned Single Judge after hearing the cases allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge, the Revenue Department has filed the above appeals.

3. The facts of the case are undisputed. The legal issue that is raised in the present appeals is whether the sale certificate which was presented for filing under Section 89(4) in Book I of the Registration Act, 1