HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

ORDER:

Heard Sri Muralidhar Patnaik K.V., learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-bank, Smt. S. Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri Sistla Venkata Suresh, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Sri G. Krishna Sairam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.10 and 11 and perused the material available on record.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondent No.4/Sub-Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad, to delete the property viz., H.No.18/A, M.C.H.No.16-02-835/35 admeasuring 388.88 sq yds in plot No.23 admeasuring 466.67 sq. yds. in Sy. No.103/2 & 103/3 situated at Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property”) from the list of prohibited properties and to register the Sale Certificate issued by the petitioner bank in favour of the respondent Nos.10 and 11-auction purchasers, under Rule 9 (6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-bank submits that originally, the subject property was purchased by the respondent Nos.7 to 9 by obtaining loan facility. Later, the said borrowers defaulted in repayment of the said loan. The petitioner-bank, after following the due process of law, initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), took over the possession of the property and later the petitioner-bank brought the mortgaged property for auction which was conducted on 10-01-2025. In the said auction, the respondent Nos.10 and 11 have stood as the highest bidders and accordingly deposited 25% of the bid amount and balance amount has to be paid before the time of registration of Sale Certificate in their favour. However, it was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner-bank by the respondent Nos.10 and 11 that the schedule property was placed under the ‘Prohibited List’ by the respondent No.4. Accordingly, the petitioner-bank approached the 4th respondent for removing the schedule property from the ‘prohibited list’ and allotting slot for registration of the Sale Certificate.

4. The 4^th respondent has informed the petitioner-bank that the respondent No.6-M/s. C.V.R. Chits Pvt. Ltd., Kothapet Branch, Hyderabad, has initiated the proceedings under Section 68 (1 & 2) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 against the subject property before the respondent No.5- Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, and the respondent No.5 has passed an attachment orders under Section 68 (2) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (for brevity ‘the Act, 1982’) in I.A.Nos.535 of 2024 in A.A.C.F.No.483 of 2024 dated 13-12-2024, I.A.No.2 of 2025 in A.A.C.F.No.483 of 2024 dated 04- 01-2025 and I.A.No.12 of 2025 in A.A.C.F.No.482 dated 21-01-2025, in respect of the subject property and therefore, the property is under the list of prohibited properties and further informed that unless and until the attachment order passed by the respondent No.5 is raised the subject property cannot be removed from the list of prohibited properties and the Certificate of Sale also cannot be admitted for Registration.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Encumbrance Certificate clearly reflects the mortgage created in favour of the petitioner-bank and in the said E.C., the charge of the respondent No.6 over the subject property is not found and therefore the respondent Nos.7 to 9 have no authority to transfer the schedule property in favour of the respondent Nos.10 and 11 and therefore the said attachment is not binding on the petitioner-bank.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner-company further submits that the action of respondent No.4 in not removing the subject property from the prohibited list is contrary to the Orders passed by this Court in the City U