THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the official respondents and learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenging the action of the respondent No.5 in not registering the sale certificate dated 08.01.2018 issued by the petitioner-Company under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, ‘SARFAESI Act’) basing on the pretext of the interim order in Crl.MP.No.498 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.375 of 2021 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad, which is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the SARFAESI Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.6 approached the petitioner-Company for the purpose of finance facility in the form of overdraft facility for his business and made an application. Subsequently, the petitioner-Company sanctioned a total amount of Rs.23,60,948/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Eight Only) to the respondent No.5 and the same was sanctioned after depositing title deeds in respect of his personal property, which is in relation to Flat No.G-4 in ground floor, in ‘Sai Sadan’ Apartment in Sy.Nos.21B, 22B and 24 situated at Nizampet, Bachupally Municipality, Medchal-Malkajgiri District as security for repayment of loan and the same is covered by registered sale deed Document No.719/2018 dated 08.01.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of default in payment, the petitioner-Company initiated proceedings under provisions of Section 14 of SARFAESI Act and took over the possession of the property on 17.11.2022 and later the petitioner-Company sold the property by way of auction in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the SARFAESI Act. In the auction, One Mr. Syed Jhony stood as highest bidder and the petitioner- Company issued a letter of confirmation to him on 20.06.2023 as the Earnest Money Deposit and confirmed the sale after payment of full amount. The respondent No.5 refused to receive the said document on the pretext of the interim order in Crl.MP.No.498 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.375 of 2021 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of respondent No.5 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.5 to register the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, basing on the counter filed by respondent No.5, submits that as per the orders of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.498 of 2021 in DVC.No.375 of 2023, dated 22.12.2021, where in the respondents are restrained from alienating or disposing of the shared house hold or encumbering the same until further orders, pertains to the suit schedule property. To comply the order of the Court, the respondents herein entered the suit schedule property in the prohibited properties list and in view of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, the respondent No.5- The Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur is not empowered to delist/delete the suit schedule property from the prohibitory properties list.

7. 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