IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

Date: 02.12.2025

Between:

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

…Petitioner

AND

The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and

Stamps & six others

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri V. Murali Manohar, learned Counsel for the

petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 and perused the

material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondent No.3 in refusing to register the sale certificate dated 13.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “SARFAESI Act”) and also the action of the respondent authorities in refusing to

remove the said scheduled property in House bearing No.32-69, Plot No.15, Sy.No.163/1, situated at Sainik Nagar, Ramakrishnapuram, Secunderabad, Malkajgiri Circle (for brevity, “subject property”), from prohibited property list, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondent No.3 to register the sale certificate dated 13.06.2025 and remove the subject property from the prohibitory list.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.7 obtained a housing loan of Rs.38,70,000/- vide Home Loan Sanction Letter dated 27.03.2015 from the petitioner Company by mortgaging the subject house property by way of a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to default in repayment, the petitioner-Company initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by filing Crl.M.P.No.8 of 2020 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at L.B.Nagar, took over the possession of the property and auctioned it by way of paper publication with the auction fixed for 20.03.2025. The Petitioner-Company issued the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser, who was later informed by respondent No.3 that the registration of the property was withheld due to an attachment order dated 24.12.2021 issued by the Deputy Registrar of Chit-cum- Arbitrator, Medchal in I.A.No.98/2021 in AACF.No.443/2018 against respondent No.7 and in view of the same, the Petitioner-

Company could not register the sale certificate.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.3 is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in City Union Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, Peddapalli and Ors.,, 2018 (5) ALT 279 and the same is followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.38125 of 2018 dated 14.10.2019 and requested to direct the respondent No.3 to register the sale deed to be issued in favour of the successful bidder. Therefore, learned Counsel prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondent No.3 to register the sale certificate dated 13.06.2025 and also to direct the respondent authorities to remove the subject property from the prohibited list and allow registrations.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration submits that in pursuance of the orders dated 24.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits-cum- Arbitrator, Medchal, in I.A.No.98 of 2021 in AACF.No.443 of 2018, the respondent authorities have entered the subject property in the prohibitory list and in view of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the respondent No.3-Sub-Registrar, Medchal-Malkajgiri is not empowered to delete the subject property from the prohibitory list and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 did not dispute the orders passed by this Court in City Union Bank Limited (supra-1), but r