COMMON ORDER

The Writs on hand had been instituted to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to file the Sale Certificate dated 13.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent and make entries in Book No.1 maintained by the Registration Department as contemplated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act

1908.

2. Detailed adjudication of facts may not be required since the issue raised in these writ petitions is whether the Sale Certificate issued by the authorised officer under the SARFAESI Act is to be entered in the Book No.1 by the Registering Authority under the Registration Act.

3. The secured creditor, holding first charge over the property, initiated auction to recover the dues. The properties were sold through public auction. The highest bidder who purchased the property was issued with a Sale Certificate by the Authorised Officer. Under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, the Authorised Officer issued a communication to the Registering Authority concerned to make entries in Book No.1 by following the procedures as contemplated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. Since, the said exercise was not done by the Registering Authority, the petitioners are constrained to move the present Writ Petitions.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners mainly contended that the issue in this regard is no more res intregra and repeatedly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this context, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ petitioners drew the attention of this Court with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“16.We are of the view that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the authorised officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction -purchaser wit a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act.”

5. The findings in paragraph 16 of Esjaypee Impex Private Limited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued clarifications in the case Reality Associates Vs. The Assistant General Manager and Authorized Officer in SLP(C) No.29752/2019 dated 29.10.2021. The clarification reads as under:

“The direction has already been passed on

05.01.2021 for the duly validated certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act. We may note that the effect of filing of the copies under the said Section 89 has the same effect as registration and obviates the requirement of any further action. The compliance of our direction already made on 05.01.2021 will not be impeded by any High Court judgment. Our order to be duly complied by the registering authority.

The applications stand disposed of.”

6. Subsequently, the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.16949/2022 in the case of Inspector General of Registration versus G. Madhurampal passed an order on 11.11.2022 as under:

“It is logically so as this issue has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view followed for the last 150 years. We may refer to the judgments by the Madras High Court in the Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 (In Re: Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty, by the Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram V. Masarat-un-Nissa opining that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind mentioned in clause (b) of Section 17 of the Act III of 1877 and is not compulsorily registrable and this Court's view in Esjaypee Impex Pvt.

Ltd. V. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank opining that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii