APHC010231282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11680 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Sea pride Management and Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated under provisions of Companies Act, 2013 Having its Registered Office at D. No. 18, 46*^ Street, Nanganallur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Director, Asish Chappa. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Department of Revenue (Stamps and Registration), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner and Inspector General, of Registration and stamps, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Collector, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The District Registrar, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 5. The Sub Registrar, Samalkota, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The Union Bank of India, Assets Recovery Branch, D.No. 26-15-150, Andhra Bank Building, Changalraopeta, Visakhapatnam, Authorised Officer. 7. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kakinada Range, Sri Deepthi Towers, Main Road, Rama Rao Peta, Kakinada Town, East Godavari District, AP - 533 001. Rep by its 8. Mr Jiyyana Venkatarayudu, S/o. J. Venkata Rao, R/o. D.No. 2-112, Main Road, Near ZP High School, Thimmapuram District - 533005. Kakinada, East Godavari ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) Declaring the action of the respondents in not handing over the possession and registering the property admeasuring property admeasuring an extent of 250.85 Sq. yards, out of 352.90 sq. yards, in survey no. 325 wherein an RCC upstairs building i.e.. Ground + Three floors vide bearing no. D.No.2- 114 located in Thimmapuram Village, Samalkota, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, unjust enrichment. b) Consequently, direct the respondents to hand over possession and register the said property free from encumbrances, c) Direct the 6th respondent Bank to pay to the petitioner the interest at the rate of 24 percent on an amount of Rs 1,15,14,000/- with effect from the date of the payment of the total sale consideration amount i.e., in 09.06.2023 or alternatively to pay an amount of Rs 95,000/- per month towards rentals/ mean profits till handing over the possession and registration of the said property. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to forthwith handover the physical possession of the auctioned property admeasuring property admeasuring an extent of 250.85 Sq. yards, out of 352.90 sq. yards, in survey no. 325 wherein an RCC upstairs building i.e.. Ground + Three floors vide bearing no. D.No.2-114 located in Thimmapuram Village, Samalkota, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh to the Petitioner. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an ad-interim direction to the 6th Respondent bank to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards rentals over the subject property or the same may be paid to the Petitioner till the disposal of the pending Writ Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct 6*^ Respondent Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 91041/- towards interest along with 24% interest to the Petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KALAKOTI SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, & 5 :GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SMT. V. DYUMANI, SC FOR UNION BANK OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : SRI ANUP KOUSHIK, SC FOR INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.8 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following order: ::1:: APHC010231282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11680/2025 Between; M/s. Sea Pride Management And Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd., ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KALAKOTI SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.VDYUMANI 2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS \ ::2:: The Court made the followinqORDER: The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by 1. the Petitioner for the following relief; “..to issue an order or direction especiaiiy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Declaring the action of the respondents in not handing over the possession and registering the property admeasuring property admeasuring an extent of 250.85 Sq. yards, out of 352.90 sq. yards, in survey no. 325 wherein an RCC upstairs building i.e.. Ground plus Three floors vide bearing no. D.No.2- 114 located in Thimmapuram Village, Samalkota, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh as contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary, unjust enrichment. Consequently, direct the respondents to hand over possession and register the said property free from encumbrances. Direct the 6th respondent Bank to pay to the petitioner the interest at the rate of 24 percent on an amount of Rs 1,15,14,000/- with effect from the date of the payment of the total sale consideration amount i.e., in 09.06.2023 or alternatively to pay an amount of Rs 95,000/- per month towards rentals/ mean profits till handing over the possession and registration of the said property and to pass such order...” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 2. 3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the successful auction purchaser of the subject property in the e-auction conducted by the 6*^ respondent on 31.05.2023. Pursuant to the said confirmation of the bid, the petitioner deposited the entire auction amount and requested the respondents to hand over possession and execute the registered sale certificate in favour of the petitioner, as per the 3 provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. He further submits that, although an auction was conducted and the entire amount was deposited in the year 2023, the 6'^ respondent bank neither executed the registered sale certificate on behalf of the petitioner nor returned the deposited amount. This demonstrates the 6**^ respondent’s inability to comply with Rule 9(9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. th 5. He further submits that the inaction of the 6 respondent bank in complying with the terms and conditions of the e-auction notice dated 30.05.2023, as well as the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, is illegal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a direction against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein, to get it register the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner or, alternatively, to refund the entire deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 23312 of 2020 dated 08.12.2020, Paras v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, specifically paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 which are held below. 9. In order to examine and adjudicate the issues in the present writ petition, it would be highly apposite and appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 26E of the Act and Section 31B of ;4 the Bankruptcy Act. Section 26E of the Act, which deals with the priority to secured creditors and which came into force w.e.f 24- 01-2020 by way of a Gazette Notification, reads as under:- Section 26 E : Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority. Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,1016, in cases where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of the Code." Section 31B of the Bankruptcy Act reads as under- 31 B. Priority to secured creditors. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realize secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central government. State Government or local authority. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code 10. A reading of the above provisions of law makes it abundantly clear that the said provisions are analogous though under two different legislations. Section 26E of the Act, which came into force w.e.f 24-01- 2020 begins with 'non obstante' clause and stipulates that after registration of the security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all ::5:: % revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central or State Governments or local authority. Section. 31B of the Bankruptcy Act is also to the same effect. When the language of the provisions of law is very lucid and clear, no other interpretation is possible. 11. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent created mortgage over the subject property by way of a registered deed in favour of Andhra Bank as long back as on 16-03-2013 and as the account of the loanee became NPA on 31-07-2016, the Bank authorities initiated action under the provisions of the Act by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and (4) of the Act. It is absolutely not in controversy that the petitioner herein clearly falls under the definition of "secured creditor" as defined under Section 2(zd) of the Act, since the petitioner herein is an Asset Reconstruction Company in whose favour Andhra Bank assigned the debt by way of registered document on 26-09-2017. In fact, the material available on record further reveals that on 18-11- 8 AVSS,J & KSR,J W.P.23312_2020 2020 i.e., immediately after the sale notice came to be issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein brought to the notice of the Office of the 2nd respondent about the existence of the security interest in favour of the petitioner herein. In fact, when the provisions of Section 26E of the Act and 31B of the Bankruptcy Act fell for consideration of this court in W.P.No.43841 of 2018, when the registering authority failed to register the sale certificate, a Division Bench of this court, while holding that the secured creditor would have the priority of the charge over the mortgaged property, allowed the said writ petition directing the registering authority to register the sale certificate. In the said judgment, the Division Bench also held that the revenue has no priority of charge over the mortgaged property in question. Having regard to the language employed in Section 26E of the Act and 31B of the Bankruptcy Act, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that mortgage in favour of the petitioner herein should yield to crown debt coupled with charge cannot be sustained in the eye of law. ;:6:: \ 6. He also relied upon the Judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 4063 of 2019 dated 18.02.2021, State Bank of India and Ors. Vs.Deputy Commerical Tax officer-!!, Visakhapatnam Division and Ors. specifically paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 which are held below. 4. In fact, the issue raised in the present batch of writ petitions is no longer res Integra. The composite High Court in W.P.No.23620 of 2017 while dealing with the provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act held in the following manner: "Chapter IV A of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (from Section 26B to Section 26E) was inserted by Section 18 of Act 44 of 2016 with effect from 01.09.2016. Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act relates to the priority of secured creditors, and stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of a security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority. The debt due, in the present case, is the income-tax payable by the eighth respondent to the Union of India; and as Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives priority in payment of the debts of a secured creditor over other dues, including the taxes payable to the Union of India, the attachment notice is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside. Needless to state that on the sale of the subject property, if any amount is available, after the entire loan of the borrower with interest and other charges are satisfied, it shall be made available to the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax for its adjustment to the income-tax dues of the eighth respondent. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed." 5. Another Division Bench of this Court, in identical set of circumstances, allowed W.P.No.5630 of 2020 by way of an order dated 01.10.2020. In the said judgment at paragraph Nos.9 to 15 this Court held as follows: ::7:: '9. The question now is, "Who will have a first charge over the property? 10. Article 251 of the Constitution reads as under : "251. Nothing in articles 249 and 250 shall restrict the power of the Legislature of a State to make any law which under this Constitution it has power to make, but if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament has under either of 7 the said articles power to make, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of the State, shall prevail, and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall to the extent of the repugnancy, but so long only as the law made by Parliament continues to have effect, be inoperative." 11. From a reading of the above it is clear that any Inconsistency between the laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by the State Legislature, the law made by the Parliament will prevail and continue to have effect. Nothing in Articles 249 and 250 shall restrict the power of the legislature of a State to make any law which under this Constitution has power to make. But if any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament has under either or the said articles power to make, the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the legislature of the State, shall prevail, and the law made by the legislature of the State shall to the extent of the repugnancy be inoperative, so long as the law made by the Parliament continues to have effect - Nallajerla Murali Krishna @ Murali The State of Telangana (Crl.P.No.9567 of 2014, dated 09-10-2014). 12. 12. In T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Anotherl the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "By virtue of the proviso to Art.254(2) of the Constitution, Parliament may repeal or amend a repugnant State law either directly or by itself by enacting a iaw repugnant to the State law with respect to the same matter. Even though the subsequent iaw made by Parliament does not expressly repeal a State law, the State law will become void under Article 254(1) if it conflicts with a later law made by Parliament creating repugnancy. Such repugnancy may arise where both laws ::8:: '''"N operate in the same field 1 1983 AIR 150 8 and the two cannot possibly stand together: As for example, where both prescribe punishment for the same offence, both the punishments differs in degree or kind or in the procedure prescribed. In all such cases the law made by Parliament shall prevail over the State law under Art. 254(1)." 13. In Karunanidhi vs Union of India2 the Hon'bie Supreme Court held as under: "It would be seen that so far as clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it dearly lays down that where there is a direct collision between a provision of a law made by the State and that made by Parliament with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the State law would be void to the extent of the repugnancy. This naturally means that where both the State and Parliament occupy the field contemplated by the Concurrent List then the Act passed by Parliament being prior in point of time will prevail and consequently the State Act will have to yield to the Central Act." 14. Issue identical to the case on hand came up for consideration in W.P. No. 23620 of 2017. It was also a case where the petitioner-bank therein initiated proceedings under the 1983 AIR 150 1979 AIR 898 provisions of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter took possession of the mortgaged property from respondent Nos.8 to 10 therein and thereafter issued tender-cum-auction notice of the subject properties vide paper notification. The auction was conducted on 22.6.2017, wherein three persons who were the highest bidders remitted a sum of Rs.51,25,000/- towards partial sale consideration. While matters stood thus, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax issued notices to the petitionerbank informing that the subject lands were under attachment 2 1979 AIR 898 9 for recovery of the Income tax dues of Rs.60.84 lakhs from M/s.Sai Concrete Pavers Private Limited (the eighth respondent). Referring to Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, which was inserted by the Act 44 of 2016 with effect from 1.9.2016. The Division Bench held that Section 26- ::9:: % E of the SARFAESI Act gives priority in payment of the debts to a secured creditor over other dues, inciuding the taxes payabie to the Union of India and accordingly set aside the attachment notice. 15. In view of the judgments referred to above, and having regard to the Article 251 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to register the property in favour of the auction purchasers. Further, it is needless to state that on the sale of the subject property, if any amount is left over, after the entire loan of the borrower with interest and other charges are adjusted, it shall be made available to the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax for its adjustment to the tax dues by the 3rd respondent." 6. The judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.44211 of 2017 and 20988 of 2019 is also to the same effect. In W.P.No.23312 of 2020, this Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 26E of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 held at paragraph Nos.10 to 12 as follows: 10. A reading of the above provisions of law makes it abundantly clear that the said provisions are analogous though under two different legislations. Section 26E of the Act, which came into force w.e.f 24-01- 2020 begins with 'non obstante' clause and stipulates that after registration of the security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central or State Governments or local authority. Section.31B of the Bankruptcy Act is also to the same effect. When the language of the provisions of law Is very lucid and clear, no other interpretation is possible. 11. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent created mortgage over the subject property by way of a registered deed in favour of Andhra Bank as long back as on 16-03-2013 and as the account of the loanee became NPA on 31-07-2016, the Bank authorities initiated action under the provisions of the Act by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and (4) of the Act. It is absolutely not in controversy that the petitioner herein clearly falls under the definition of "secured creditor" as defined under Section 2(zd) of the Act, since the petitioner herein is an Asset Reconstruction Company in whose favour Andhra Bank assigned the debt by way of registered document on 26-09- 2017. In fact, the material available on record further reveals that on 18-11- AVSS,J & KSR,J W.P.23312_2020 8 2020 i.e., immediately after the sale notice came to be issued by the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner herein brought to the notice of the Office of the 2nd respondent about the existence of the security interest in favour of the petitioner herein. In fact, when the provisions of Section 26E of the Act and 31B of the Bankruptcy Act fell for consideration of this court in W.P.No.43841 of 2018, when the registering authority failed to register the sale certificate, a Division Bench of this court, while holding that the secured creditor would have the priority of the charge over the mortgaged property, allowed the said writ petition directing the registering authority to register the sale certificate. In the said judgment, the Division Bench also held that the revenue has no priority of charge over the mortgaged property in question. Having regard to the language employed In Section 26E of the Act and 31B of the Bankruptcy Act, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that mortgage In favour of the petitioner herein should yield to crown debt coupled with charge cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. Submission of the learned Government Pleader that since the petitioner-institution did not take any steps pursuant to the assignment of debt in its favour, it is liable to be non-suited, is also not tenable having regard to the above said provision of law. With regard to the contention of the learned Government Pleader on the prospective application of the provisions of Section 26E of the Act and Section 31B of the Bankruptcy Act, it is to be noted that the said provisions do not make any distinction to the said effect. Accordingly, the said contention is also rejected." It is very much evident from the above paragraphs that the issues raised in the present batch of writ petitions are squarely covered by the earlier orders of this Court referred to supra. 7. With regard to the contention of the learned Government Pleader on the aspect of applicability of Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, in the considered opinion of this Court, a reading of the language of the said provisions of law makes it very much manifest that the security interest, existing as on the date of commencement of the said provisions of law, Is required to be taken as a criteria for extending the safeguard and benefit of the said provisions of law to the secured creditors. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed that the said provisions of law are applicable only to the security created subsequent to the advent of the said provisions of law and such an interpretation sought to be pressed into service by the learned Government Pleader, undoubtedly, frustrates the very intention of the Parliament in introducing such drastic provisions of law to protect and safeguard the interest of the secured creditors. Therefore, the contention contra advanced by the learned Government Pleader is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, all the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings/orders with a further declaration that on the basis of the said proceedings/orders either the Commercial Taxes Department or the Revenue Department cannot restrain the registration authorities from registering the documents submitted by the auction purchasers or the banks/financial institutions nor the banks are entitled to withhold the sale certificates pursuant to the auctions held. It is also made clear that if any balance of sale consideration amount is available after the loan of the banks/financial institutions with interest and other charges as specified, same shall be made available to the department concerned for adjustment towards the dues, if any. > 7. He also relied on the Judgment passed by this court in writ petition No.23620 of 2017, where in it is stated as under;- '"Chapter IVA of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (from Section 26B to Section 26E) was inserted by Section 18 of Act 44 of 2016 with effect from 01.09 2016. Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act relates to the priority of secured creditors, and stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of a security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority The debt due, in the present case, is the income-tax payable by the eighth respondent to the Union of India; and as Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives priority in payment of the debts of a secured creditor over other dues, including the taxes payable to the Union of India, the attachment notice is liable to be and is, accordingly, set aside Needless to state that on the sale of the subject property, if any amount is available, after the entire loan of the borrower with interest and other charges are satisfied, it shall be made available to the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax for its adjustment to the income-tax dues of the eighth respondent”. 8. He further submits that, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court, respondents 4 and 5 cannot sit over the matter on the pretext of an order attachment of the property was issued by the Income Tax Department, particularly when the subject property was already mortgaged in favour of the 6*'^ respondent bank. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 6*^ respondent submits that the 6^^ respondent has taken all necessary steps to complete the transaction and has already issued the sale certificate dated 18.03.2024. The 6*^ respondent has also forwarded the sale certificate to the 4^*^ and 5‘^ 9. respondents for registration, in compliance with Rule 9(9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, read with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. However, for one reason or other, the 4*^ and 5*^ respondents have failed to register the sale certificate. Challenging this inaction, the 6th respondent has already filed Writ Petition No. 9697 of 2024, which is pending before this Hon’ble Court. He further reiterates that, as per the ratio laid down in the petitioner’s case, the claim of the petitioner should be considered, and the sale certificate dated 18.03.2024 issued by the 6 respondent should be acted upon by the respondents 4 and 5 in accordance th with law. The learned Government Pleader furnished written instructions dated 10. 07.05.2025, issued by the 5*'^ respondent, wherein it is stated as follows;- With regard to the allegation of the Mandal Surveyor came to the land of the petitioner on 05 06.2025. on the guide of the 4th respondent i.e., Tahsildar Vetapalem and measured the same without any notice is not correct. The Mandal Surveyor, Vetapalem has not visited the land in Sy. No 159 of Kothapeta Village or any other land held by the petitioner on 05.06.2025 and not measured any land. The allegation of the petitioner that respondents 4&5 are trying to interfere with the petitioners land and trying to dispossess him from his land is also not correct. The petitioner filed this writ petition with all false allegations. 11. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, so far, the 6*'' respondent has never presented the subject sale certificate for registration. If the e**" respondent submits the document to be registered before the 5*^ respondent, the same will be received and processed in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, and the Rules framed there under. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the 6'^ respondent conducted an e-auction in respect of the mortgaged property in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The petitioner herein became the successful auction purchaser and deposited the entire sale amount as per the auction sale notice and Rules, 2002. In compliance with the Rules, the respondent duly issued the sale certificate dated 18.03.2024 in favour of the petitioner. 12. 13. Upon completion of the sale transaction, it is evident that the respondent was under a statutory obligation under Rule 9(9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 to register the sale certificate and deliver the possession of the property to the petitioner. However, even after lapse of more than one year, the 6**^ respondent has not fully complied with Rule 9(9). Upon perusal of Rule 9(9) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the 6th respondent is under a statutory obligation to deliver possession of the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the 14. secured creditor. As contended by the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, the registration of the sale certificate dated 18.03.2024 is being delayed on the ground of the attachment order by the Income Tax Department. However, it is contrary to the instructions dated 07.05.2025 issued by the 5th respondent. 15. On perusal of the ratio laid down by this Court, as extracted above, even though an attachment order has been issued by the Income Tax Department over the mortgaged property, the same cannot defeat the existing mortgage rights of the 6‘^ respondent. Hence, respondents 4 and 5 cannot refuse registration on the pretext of the attachment order. It is further observed that, as per the written instructions submitted by the 5th respondent, he has expressed his readiness to receive the documents and process them in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. If that is so, the 6th respondent has a statutory obligation to 16. present and submit the sale certificate dated 18.03.2024 to the 5th respondent within a reasonable time, preferably not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon submission of the sale certificate by the 6th respondent, the 5th respondent shall receive and consider the same in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect, provided the 6th respondent and the petitioner comply with all other conditions stipulated under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. as 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sdl- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYA SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Registration), State of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner and Inspector General, of Registration and stamps Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Collector, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The District Registrar, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 5. The Sub Registrar, Samalkota, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. Officer, Union Bank of India, Assets Recovery Branch, 7 Building, Changalraopeta, Visakhapatnam /. me Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kakinada Range, Sri Deepthi Towers, Mam Road, Rama Rao Peta, Kakinada Town District, AP - 533 001. 9. One CC to Sri Kalakoti Sunil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 10. One CC to Smt. V. Dyumani, SC for Union Bank of India [OPUC] 11. Two CCs to GP for Registration and Stamps, High Court Pradesh [OUT] I o' Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 13. One CC to Sri Anup Koushik, SC for Income Tax [OPUC! 14. Two CD Copies Revenue (Stamps and Secretariat, Velagapudi, East Godavari of Andhra Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER WP NO. 11680 OF 2025 18 JUL 2025 . N^utrentSectioax^i/ 5& DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS