IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

WRIT PETITION No.31844 of 2025

THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

Between:

Union Bank of India.

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Stamps and Registration Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad & Three Others.

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the

entire material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent No.2 to remove the residential house bearing H.No.6- 3-258 (Old House No.S1-B-258) in Sy.No.201, to an extent of 131.57 Sq.yards (110 Sq.meters) with a plinth area of 728 Sq.feet,

situated in Sahebnagar Colony, Vanasthalipuram Phase-II, Sachivalayanagar, L.B.Nagar Municipality, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (for brevity, “subject property”) from the list of prohibited properties and to register the sale certificate dated 21.03.2025 issued by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity, “the Rules, 2002”).

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.4 obtained a housing loan of Rs.9 Lakhs in June 2013 vide Loan Sanction Letter dated 22.06.2013 and also availed a Cash Credit-Working Capital Limit of Rs.66 Lakhs, through his proprietorship firm named M/s. Coser Coal C&F Agency in April 2013, from the petitioner-Bank by mortgaging the subject property by way of a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 09.07.2013 vide Document No.4795 of 2013, in favour of the petitioner-Bank.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to default in repayment of the said loans, respondent No.4 was classified as a Non-Performing Asset with effect from 31.10.2018. The petitioner-Bank initiated proceedings against him by issuing a Demand Notice dated 02.11.2018 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “SARFAESI Act”). Even thereafter, the respondent No.4 failed to repay the loan amount. Consequently, the petitioner-Bank took constructive possession of the subject property by issuing a possession notice dated 05.07.2019 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank filed Crl.M.P.No.94 of 2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District and obtained physical possession of the subject property on 28.07.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as on 31.10.2024, the total amount due from the respondent No.4 was Rs.1,07,81,741.39/-. In order to recover the same, the petitioner- Bank issued Auction Notice dated 06.12.2024 under Rule 8(6) of the Rules, 2002 and sold the subject property to one Ms. Anitha Kesireddy, the highest bidder, for Rs.1,12,53,000/-. After receipt of the entire sale consideration, the petitioner-Bank issued the sale certificate dated 21.03.2025 under Rule 9(6) of the said Rules in favour of the auction purchaser. Subsequently, the auction purchaser approached respondent No.2-Sub Register, Vanasthalipuram for registration of subject property after booking a slot. However, the respondent No.2-Sub Registrar refused registration citing that the subject property was placed in the list of prohibited properties due to an attachment order dated 26.06.2024 in E.P.No.93 of 2022 in ARC.No.48 of 2020 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the respondent No.3-M/s. Margadarsi Chit Funds Private Limited. Further, the respondent No.2 further informed the auction purchaser that the said sale certificate dated 21.03.2025