C/SCA/7359/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7359 of 2024 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No Yes -- ========================================== TRUSHALI VAIBHAV SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================== Appearance: KHYATI A CHUGH(10132) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR ANGESH PANCHAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 20/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for <nal hearing and disposal. C/SCA/7359/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 3. Present petition is <led by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”) seeking the following reliefs:- “A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction or command in the nature of writ of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the impugned order / communication dated 01.02.2024 issued by respondent No.2 herein. B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue as writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction or command in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 herein to register the Deed of Conveyance of lease hold rights in respect of property bearing Survey No. 3124, Ward No.6, Sheet No. 276 admeasuring 343.75 square meters, construction area 159.76 square meters, Plot No. 1886/B, situated at Atabhai Road, Krishnanagar, Bhavnagar. C. Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare that the charge of respondent No.1 be declared to have been extinguished over the said property. D. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem 5t and proper in the circumstances may also be given. 4. Brief facts of the present case are that M/s. Raj Picture House was desirous to obtain <nancial facilities from the Bank of Baroda and for such purpose, it approached the Bank in the year 2013 and properties bearing City Survey No. 55, Ward No.7 admeasuring 151.80 square meters and Survey No. 3124, Ward No.6 admeasuring 159.76 square meters were mortgaged. It is the case of the petitioner that M/s.Raj Picture House failed to repay the <nancial facilities and, therefore, the Bank proceeded to auction the said properties under C/SCA/7359/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and after following due process of law, the Bank issued public notices for auctioning the properties. It is also the case of the petitioner that the auction was knocked down in favour of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner by email and pursuant to the aforesaid, the Bank executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner conveying ownership of the lease hold rights and Bank issued a sale certi<cate under Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Rules. It further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for registration of the sale deed / certi<cate, however, respondent No.2 refused to register the sale deed and impounded the same on the ground that there was a charge over the property of the State Value Added Tax Department, which had passed an order of provisional attachment under Sections 45(1) and 45(2) on 22.07.2016. 5. In light of the aforesaid facts, the following undisputed aspects emerge: (i) The Bank has conveyed the lease hold rights of the said property to the petitioner under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act which stands concluded. (ii) The Bank also issued a Sale Certi<cate dated 18.10.2023 in favour of the petitioner. (iii) The said auction has not been challenged by any party, therefore, no interest survives of the original owner after the auction sale by the petitioner and the petitioner becomes the absolute owner with lease hold rights over the said property. Page 3 of 7 C/SCA/7359/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 (iv) The petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration pursuant to the auction held on 11.10.2023 amounting to Rs.1,96,90,000/-. (v) Pursuant thereto, a Deed of Conveyance of the lease hold rights was executed by the Bank in favour of the present petitioner as per Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Rules. 6. Heard Mr.Parth Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record. 7. Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent – authorities is contrary to the settled principle of law and in contravention of the catena of decisions of this Court. He has submitted that the respondents have failed to appreciate the fact that the SARFAESI Act will have overriding eIect over all other laws and therefore, any past dues or charges of any crown debt cannot have precedence over the charge of the <nancial institutions under the SARFAESI Act. He has also submitted that respondent No.2 has failed to consider the fact that the Deed of Conveyance of rights in respect of the said parcel of land by the Bank in favour of the petitioner was under statutory scheme and, therefore could not have refused registration of Deed of Conveyance. He has submitted that the respondents have failed to consider the fact that the charge created with regard to the property for VAT is of no avail and has no relevance C/SCA/7359/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 in the eyes of law. He has submitted that respondent No.2 has exceeded its jurisdiction provided under the Registration Act by refusing to register the Deed of Conveyance and register the sale deed. He has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:- (1) Alok Kistuchand Agarwal Vs. Sub Registrar in Special Civil Application No. 10314 of 2021 dated 06.04.2022. (2) Odhavjibhai Mohanbhai Gadhiya Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 9394 of 2021 dated 30.09.2022. (3) Patel Tusharbhai Amrutlal Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 11182 of 2022 dated 07.01.2023. (4) Anant Corporation Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 25987 of 2022 dated 01.12.2023. (5) Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupareliya Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 9565 of 2023 and allied petitions dated 04.01.2024. (6) Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 17891 of 2018 dated 23.09.2019. (7) Punjab National Bank Vs. Union of India and others, (2022) 7 SCC 260. (8) Jigar Amrutlal Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC Online Guj 2083. 8. Mr.Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the C/SCA/7359/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 respondents has submitted that the Court may pass appropriate order. 9. The petitioner has also <led additional aJdavit along with the letter dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Bank of Baroda wherein the Bank has explained that the property was sold in public auction to the petitioner and the sale certi<cate has been issued through the concerned authorized oJcer, but still conveyance deed has not been executed. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the petition and the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order passed by the respondent – authority, the contention of the petitioner that the Raj Picture House had obtained <nancial assistance from the Bank of Baroda and it has mortgaged the property as mentioned in para 5.2 of the petition and said Raj Picture House has failed to repay the loan amount and, therefore, the Bank has initiated proceedings under the debt recovery and the Bank has taken the possession of the property in question. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Bank has initiated the proceedings to recover the loan amount and thereafter, the Bank has auctioned the property which was mortgaged and after completing formalities and getting permission, the Bank has issued public notice for auction of the property and in view of the public notice, the petitioner was declared successful bidder and oIered to purchase the said property. It is contended by the petitioner that the Bank has executed sale deed and issued sale certi<cate in favour of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No.2 C/SCA/7359/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026 for the purpose of registration of the sale deed, however, respondent No.2 has refused to register the same on the ground that there was charge over the property of State Value Added Tax Department, who had passed an order of provisional attachment under Section 45(1) and 45(2). Though the Bank has issued sale certi<cate, the respondent – authority has to register the sale deed executed between the petitioner and the Bank and the authority cannot refuse to register the transaction. Now, considering the said aspect and the decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to register the sale certi<cate / sale deed executed between the petitioner and the Bank. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 17:52:54