THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration and learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner-Bank dated 11.11.2024 to register the Sale Certificate issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the Auction Purchaser in violation of Section 68(3) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Section 31(B) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s. V.S. Constructions and Developers has availed multiple credit facilities from the petitioner-Bank in the year, 2018 and the Respondent No.3 being one of the partners in the said partnership firm, has mortgaged a building property bearing H.No.6-6-203 and 6-6-204, situated at Padma Nagar, Jagtial with the petitioner- Bank by depositing the original title deeds. Due to persistent default in repayment of loan due, the petitioner-Bank has initiated action under SARFAESI Act for sale of the mortgaged property. After unsuccessful attempts, the petitioner-Bank issued sale notice dated 09.11.2023 and conducted auction on 29.11.2023, wherein one Mr. Balmuri Sandeep Rao was declared as successful bidder for the amount of Rs.1,45,60,000/- and after payment of entire auction bid amount, the petitioner-Bank issued sale certificate on 11.06.2024 in his favour. When the petitioner-Bank has approached the respondent No.2-Sub-Registrar for registration of the said sale certificate, the respondent No.2 refused to receive the said document on the pretext that the property is under attachment by virtue of the attachment order dated 23.02.2023 issued by the Chit Fund Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.2 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.2 to register the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, basing on the counter filed by respondent No.2, submits that as the respondent No.3 has failed to pay future installments to the chit fund company, attachment order was passed for the property of the respondent No.3 and the property was in the list of prohibited properties. He submits the respondent No.2 has received a letter dated 12.11.2024 from the petitioner-Bank to register the sale certificate, but they have not presented the sale certificate for processing and if the petitioner Bank presented the sale

certificate, action will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration further submits that though the sale certificate was issued under SARFAESI Act, it cannot be registered, as the property involved in the sale certificate is already in prohibited list on the website of the IGRS and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

7. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the sale certificate issued by the petitioner-bank to the auction purchaser for registration of the suit schedule property as per SARFAESI Act. The respondent No.3 has mortgaged the subject property for the loan availed by M/s.V.S.Constructions and Developers. The petitioner by following the procedure contemplated under SARFAESI Act conducted auction for the suit schedule property and issued sale certificate in favour of auction purchaser. Now, the respondent No.2 refused to register the sale certificate on the ground that there is