APHC010028932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Writ Petition Nos.1779 and 1856 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-9 [3483] W.P. No.1779 of 2025 State Bank Of India, ...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: S Satyanarayana Moorthy Advocate for Respondent: GP for Registration And Stamps CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 27th January 2025 PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: Since the issues raised in the present petitions are common, it is proposed to dispose of the same by way of common judgment and order. The present petitions have been filed seeking a mandamus to the registering authority i.e., the Sub-Registrar, Stamps and Registration Department – respondent No.3 to register the sale certificate, dated 22.10.2024, in W.P. No.1779 of 2025, and sale certificate, dated 31.03.2024, in W.P. No.1856 of 2025. The sale of the properties, which were secured assets, were effected by the petitioner Bank by invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2 HCJ & RC, J W.P. Nos: 1779 &1856 of 2025 2002, on account of the failure of the borrowers/guarantors to repay the loan amount. The registering authority, it appears, has refused registration of sale certificates on account of the fact that there was an order of attachment, dated 13.09.2022, in reference to W.P. No.1779 of 2025 and order of attachment, dated 18.08.2020, in reference to W.P. No.1856 of 2025 passed by the civil Courts, which prevented the registering authority from registering the sale certificates. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, would submit that notwithstanding the fact that civil Courts had issued the orders of attachment, yet the mortgages had been created with the Petitioner Bank much earlier to the passing of the orders of attachment. It is stated that on the property covered in W.P. No.1779 of 2025, mortgage was created on 26.12.2019, and on the property covered in W.P. No.1856 of 2025, mortgage was created on 24.10.2018, much before the orders of attachment passed by the civil Court. 3. The issue as to whether the registering authority can refuse to register the sales certificate on account of an order of attachment is already settled by this Court in its judgment and order, dated 04.12.2024, in the case of M/s. Manasa Hotels Private Limited v. Union of India and others 1 . The Judgment and Order supra had followed the view expressed by the erstwhile 1 W.P. No. 12458 of 2024 3 HCJ & RC, J W.P. Nos: 1779 &1856 of 2025 High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of City Union Bank Ltd. v. Sub- Registrar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar district and others2 . The ratio of the judgments supra is that attachments affected subsequent to the mortgage created in favor of the bank, do not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property and such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under the Act. 4. Be that as it may, a view having already been expressed by this Court in the case of M/s. Manasa Hotels Private Limited (supra), we allow these petitions and direct the respondents to register the sale certificates in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act on payment of the requisite registration fee, notwithstanding the existence of the orders of attachment, dated 13.09.2022, in reference to W.P. No.1779 of 2025 and order of attachment, dated 18.08.2020 in reference to W.P. No.1856 of 2025, passed by the civil Courts. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J akn 2 22018 SCC Online Hyd 370 4 HCJ & RC, J W.P. Nos: 1779 &1856 of 2025 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Writ Petition Nos: 1779 and 1856 of 2025 DATE : 27.01.2025 AKN 190