THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.21607 OF 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the official respondents and perused the material on record.

2. None appeared on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.2 vide letter No.321/SRO/CHKP/2024, dated 11.07.2024 intimating refusal of the pending Doc No i.e., Certificate of Sale dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Writ Petitioner in respect of Residential Building Bearing H.No.2-1-444/12, admeasuring 419 square yards, situated at New Nallakunta, near Vegetable Market, Osmania University Road, Hyderabad for which auction was conducted on 28.02.2024 by Petitioner Bank under SARFAESI Act is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and in violation of Registration Act and requested to direct the Respondent No.2 to register the Sale Certificate dated 27.05.2024 pending Document No.225/2024 issued by the Petitioner-

Bank.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed on the ground that the attachment order was issued by the Income Tax Department under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act is in force. The petitioner-Bank had executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds on 31.08.2019 and as on that date, there is no valid provisional attachment against the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 came into force from 01.09.2019. The respondents basing on the new Act has treating the attachment period upto seven (7) years and passed impugned order. The said contention of the respondents is not valid as on the date of execution of the document between the petitioner and the borrower on 31.08.2019, there is no valid provisional attachment as per Rule 68B of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and the registering authority has to register the document presented by the petitioner-Bank in favour of the auction purchaser under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and requested to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on the Judgments in:

1. Sapana Charudatt Ranadive v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others

1 2019 SCC online Bom 13163

2. Commissioner of Income Tax and another v.

S.V.Gopala Rao and others

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration basing on the counter submits that the impugned property D.No.2-1-144/12/1, Nallakunta OU Road, Hyderabad was attached by the Tax Recovery Officer- IV, Hyderabad as per Form No.ITCP-16 under F.No.TRO-

4/SR-252/246/PAN:AEOPD7880R/AAECP1037D/14-15, dated 16.12.2014. The schedule property is prohibited for registration. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the registering authority under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner approached this Court without availing remedy under Section 72 of the Act, 1908 and the writ petition is not maintainable and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

7. The respondent No.4 filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner but in spite of listing the

2 (2018) 13 SCC 189

matter for hearing before this Court, on 01.04.2025 there was no representation for the respondent No.4, therefore the matter was directed to be listed after two weeks i.e., 15.04.2025. On 15.04.2025, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 sought time to get instructions with regard to the amendment of Section 68B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter the matter was listed on 29.04.2025, 24.06.2025, 08.07.2025 and there was no representation for the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. This matter was heard by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 08.07.2025 and the matter was li