IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Gopal Bagri - Petitioner
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Dolipur, Jajpur Road, Jajpur and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.39399 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2025
JUDGMEMT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the O.P. No.1 (Sub-Registrar, Dolipur, Jajpur Road in the district of Jajpur) to act on the Letter dated 11.10.2023 under Annexure-5 Series of the petitioner and to correct the entries in the books, so as to note the fact of quashing of the sale notice/sale certificate as per order dated 20.03.2017 under Annexure-2.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was the guarantor for the loan incurred by the loanee from O.P. No.3 (Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Cuttack) giving his properties covered under Khata No.380/5 Plot No.748, Ac.0.19 decimals under Sukinda Tahasil in the District of Jajpur and Plot No.747 Ac.0.18 decimals under Khata No.380/105 to the Bank (O.P. No.3) as securities for the said loan of the loanee.
On account of default of payment of loan amount by the loanee, the O.P. No.3 (Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Cuttack) enforced the above secured properties of the guarantor/petitioner under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as ‘SARFAESI Act, 2002’) and as per the said Act, 2002, the above properties of the petitioner were auctioned in favour of the O.P. No.2 Purna Chandra Samal and accordingly, a registered sale certificate bearing No.821500822 dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-1) was issued in favour of the auction purchaser Purna Chandra Samal (O.P. No.2) and the same was registered before the O.P. No.1 (Sub-Registrar, Dolipur).
On being dissatisfied with the above auction of the properties of the petitioner, he (petitioner) filed writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.2795 of 2015 before this Court challenging the above auction sale of his properties under SARFAESI Act, 2002 in favour of O.P. No.2 and also challenged the sale certificate bearing No.821500822 dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-1) issued in respect of his above properties in favour of Purna Chandra Samal (O.P. No.2) much before the confirmation of the sale on the ground that, he (petitioner) was ready to pay the entire loan amount along with accrued interest thereon which was outstanding against the loanee and to release the auctioned properties as per Annexure-1 in his favour.
3. After hearing to the W.P.(C) No.2795 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court as per Order dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-2) allowed that writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the sale certificate dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-1) issued in favour of the O.P. No.2-Purna Chandra Samal in respect of the above properties of the petitioner.
4. In pursuance to the said final Order dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-2) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2795 of 2015, the head office of the O.P. No.3 issued a letter dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure-3) to the O.P. No.3 extinguishing the petitioner’s liabilities with respect to the above properties, those were mortgaged before the O.P. No.3 for the loan of the loanee. Accordingly, the properties of the petitioner covered under the sale certificate vide Annexure-1 were made free from its mortgage without any encumbrance in respect of the same.
Thereafter, when the petitioner being the exclusive owner of the properties covered under the quashed sale certificate vide Annexure-1 wanted to sale the said properties to his prospective vendor and applied for encumbrance certificate, he (petitioner) found from the encumbrance certificate vide Annexure-4 that, the quashed sale certificate as per order passed in Annexure-2 is continuing as encumbrance against his properties covered under Khata No.380/5, Plot No.748, Ac.0.19 decimals under Sukinda Tahasil in the District of Jajpur and Plot No.747 Ac.0.18 decimals under Khata No.380/105 in the same Mouza.
For which, the petitioner requested O.P. No.1 as per letter dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure-5 Series) for deletion of Annexure-1 as an encumbrance ag
The duty of the Sub-Registrar to amend land records to reflect quashed sale certificates is affirmed.
The court affirmed that the entry of a Sale Certificate in the local registration office is a statutory requirement for record preservation, not subject to compulsory registration, thereby affirming ....
A sale certificate issued after an auction sale must be filed in Book 1 by the Sub-Registrar without refusal, as it does not require registration under the Registration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was not liable to pay deficit stamp duty and registration fees, and the impounding of the registered sale certificate was quash....
Secured creditors under SARFAESI Act have priority over all other debts, including tax attachments, affirming the necessity of registering Sale Certificates in favor of auction purchasers.
The court mandated that sale certificates must be duly entered as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, allowing for flexibility regarding stamp duty.
The SARFAESI Act affirms secured creditors' priority over state debts, overturning any conflicting tax attachments regarding sold properties.
The court held that a sale certificate, required to be filed in the local registration office under law, cannot be refused based on a status quo order in a related civil suit involving a non-party.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.