THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER

Heard Sri VUSSR Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for

the petitioner, Smt S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and

perused the material on record.

2. In spite of service of notice none appeared for the

respondent Nos.6 to 8.

3. This writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondent No.5/Sub-Registrar, Sanga Reddy, to delist the RCC House No.13-126, constructed in the open plot, admeasuring to an extent of 98 Sq.Yards, having plinth area of Ground Floor 638 Sq.Yards, Roof covered with RCC, situated in 13th Ward and Block, Venkateswara Colony, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’), from the Prohibitory List maintained under Secton 22-A

of the Indian Registration Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 has availed a mortgage loan of Rs.14,15,937/- on 22.11.2021 from the petitioner- Finance Compnay, by mortgaging the subject property, and respondent No.7, being the wife of the respondent No.6 has also executed security documents, declarations etc., in favour of the petitioner-company. After availing the loan, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 have committed breach of terms and conditions of the loan agreement and became defaulters in payment of installments. The petitioner-Bank, being a secured creditor, has initiated proceedings against the respondent Nos.6 and 7 under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 ( for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) demanding them to pay Rs.15,62,380/- within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Having received the said notices, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 failed to liquidate the debt, therefore the petitoner Bank constrained to issue notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act by publishing notice in English and Telugu Newspapers on 02.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank filed a petition under Section 14 of the SARFEASI Act, before the XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for taking possession of the subject property and accordingly the said petition was allowed 30.08.2024 and the possession of the subject property was taken over by the petitioner- company through an Advocate-Commissioner on

09.01.2025.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the E-Auction one Mr.MD Rafeeq became successful bidder and Sale Certificate was issued to him on 09.07.2025. When the petitioner- compnay appraohced the respondent No.5 for registration, it was found that the subject property was listed in prohibited list on the basis of the Arbitral Award passed by the respondent No.5 in ARB No.452/2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 dated 26.04.2025 and in view of the same, the petitioner compnay is unable to complete the registration process in favour of the bidder in the public auction.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the petitioner Bank is a secured creditor having first charge over the subject property from 2021 and the attachment is effected subsequent to the mortgage in the year, 2025, which will not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property and further such attachments have no impact on the sale that would be conducted under the Act. The petitioner-Bank is neither party to the proceedings initiated by Shriram Finance Ltd., and therefore said attachment is not binding on the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.3 in not removing the subject property from the prohibited list 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 was 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.4 to register the sale certificate to be issued by the petitioner Bank in favour