*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA +WRIT PETITION No.25977 of 2025 Between: # Exxella Infraprojects Private Limited and Another ...PETITIONERS AND $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Secretary, Stamps and Registration, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh and 5 Others ...RESPONDENTS ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06.11.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25977 of 2025 *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA +WRIT PETITION No.25977 of 2025 % 06.11.2025 # Between: # Exxella Infraprojects Private Limited and another ...PETITIONERS AND $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Secretary, Stamps and Registration, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh and 5 Others ...RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Tagore Yadav Yaragorla ! Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 : GP for Stamps and Registration ! Counsel for the 6th Respondents : K.Pallavi <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2018 SCC OnLine Hyderabad 370 2. W.P.No.44018 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25977 of 2025 APHC010505382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 25977/2025 Between: 1. EXXEELLA INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, (CIN NO. U45400TG2022PTC169690) F. NO. 104. P NO. 96, SRI LAKSHMI LAKE VIEW, VEDIRI ESTATES, HMT COLONY, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500049 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. NALLANI BUDDHI BABU) 2. NALLANI BUDDHI BABU, S/O VENKATESWARAO AGED 53 YEARS OLD 29-19-70, DORNAKAL ROAD, BESIDE FAMILY HOSPTEL, SURYARAO PETA VIJAYAWADA (URBAN) KRISHNA ANDHRA PRADESH - 520002 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, VELANGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT, NANDIGAMA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. IKF FINANCE LIMITED, D. NO. 40-1-44, CORPORATE CENTRE M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520010, A.P. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER 4. M/S KEERTHI FINANCE, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR Y. VIJAYA CHANDRA BABU, AGE - 53 YEARS OLD S/O VENKATA RATNAM, D.NO. 26-3-66, MADUNURIVARI STREET, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520003. 5. MS GURRAM UMA MAHESHWARI DEVI, AGE - 46 YEARS OLD W/O VENKATASWARA RAO, D. NO. 21-10/3-73A, SRI NAGAR, 3RD LANE, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - ANDHRA PRADESH 520011 6. NALLAPATI VEERANJANEYULU, S/O. LATE ANJANEYULU, AGED 44 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO. 46-139-378, 2ND LANE, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25977 of 2025 pleased topleased to. a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub- Registrar, Nandigama, in including the scheduled property in the list of prohibited properties, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub- Registrar, Nandigama, in not registering the sale deed as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, c) Direct the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama, to forthwith accept and register the sale deed executed by the Petitioner Company in respect of the Schedule mentioned property, pursuant to the exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act, without reference to or reliance upon the subsequent civil court attachment in I.A. No. 38/2024 in O.S. No. 79/2024 or any other subsequent claim, d) Direct that the attachment order passed in I.A. No. 38/2024 in O.S. No. 79/2024 by the Court of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, being subsequent to Sale certificate dated 21.10.2024 issued through auction process by Respondent No. 3 (Secured Creditor), does not affect or override the Petitioner's rights as a prior secured creditor. Pass IA NO: 1 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 pleased to. Direct the Respondent No. 2 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama, to forthwith accept and register the sale deed executed by the Petitioner Company in respect of the Schedule mentioned property, pursuant to the exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act, without reference to or reliance upon the subsequent civil court attachment in O.S. No. 74 of 2024 or any other subsequent claim pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K PALLAVI 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25977 of 2025 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition for Mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2-Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama, in including the secured asset in the list of prohibitory properties as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and also to declare the action of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Nandigama in not registering the sale deed presented by the auction purchasers selling the land to third party as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to direct the Joint Sub- Registrar, Nandigama, to forthwith receive the sale deed and to register the same. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Smt. K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.3 and 4, none appeared and they did not contest this writ petition. Notice issued to respondent No.5 was returned unserved as „door locked‟. As the 5th respondent is only a borrower and the answering respondents in this writ petition are only respondent Nos.2 and 6, no further notice was issued to him. 3. The 5th respondent is the co-borrower who availed loan from the 3rd respondent – IKF Finance Limited. The 5th respondent has offered landed property in an extent of Ac.5.43 cents as security for the loan that was availed. As the principal borrowers committed default in repayment of the said loan amount, the 3rd respondent has initiated SARFAESI proceedings and brought the said secured asset for sale in the auction. The auction was conducted and the petitioners herein have purchased the said property in the auction that was held. Thereafter, they have deposited the entire sale consideration and the sale certificate was executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the petitioners in respect of the said property and the said sale certificate was also registered by the 2nd respondent. 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25977 of 2025 4. Subsequently, the 6th respondent filed a suit against the 5th respondent, who is the owner of the said landed property that was sold in the auction being a secured asset for recovery of amount due from him on the foot of a promissory note in the Civil Court and obtained an order of attachment before judgment of the said landed property. On account of the said order of attachment that was passed by the Civil Court, the 2nd respondent i.e., Sub-Registrar has included the said landed property in the list of prohibited properties. The petitioners, who became owners of the said land by virtue of the registered sale certificate executed in their favour as they are the auction purchasers of the said land now intend to sell away the said property to some third parties. As the land was included in the prohibited list by the 2nd respondent, the sale could not be effected as the 2nd respondent is refusing to register the sale deed relating to the said sale transaction. 5. Admittedly, the 4th respondent is the secured creditor. The secured asset was sold in the auction that was held for recovery of the loan amount. The petitioners are the auction purchasers and registered sale certificate was executed in their favour in respect of the said landed property. So, they became absolute owners of the said land. Therefore, they got right to sell away the said property. The attachment before judgment that was passed by the Civil Court in a suit that was instituted by the 6th respondent against the 5th respondent is a subsequent order that was passed after the mortgage of the said land by the 5th respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent and after the sale of the land in the auction. Therefore, the order of attachment before judgment cannot affect the sale of the land in favour of the petitioners. The legal proposition in this regard is not res integra and it is well settled. 6. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to deal with the said legal position in the case of City Union Bank Limited vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli of Karimnagar district and others1. When the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale certificate in favour of the auction 1 2018 SCC Online Hyderabad 370 7 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25977 of 2025 purchasers and the same is questioned before the High Court, the Court, after considering the law on the aspect, allowed the writ petitions and held that the secured creditor is entitled to succeed and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificates in accordance with the Registration Act. In the said case also, there was an order of attachment before judgment passed by the Civil Court subsequent to the sale that took place in the auction. The Court held that, as the mortgage in favour of the Bank is prior in time and as the order of attachment before judgment was passed subsequently, the mortgage in favour of the Bank prevails and the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register the sale certificate. Then, when a similar question came up for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18008 of 2024 in the case of Karur Vysya Bank Limited vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, this Court after considering the earlier precedents rendered on the point including the case of City Union Bank Limited (supra) held that, the action of the registering authority in refusing to register the sale certificate issued by petitioner-bank to the successful bidder in the auction held under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, is not in accordance with the true spirit of the Standing Order-219 and thereby directed the registering authority to effect registration of the sale certificate. The Common High Court of Hyderabad in the judgment rendered in the case of Andhra Bank, Munagala Branch, rep. by its Authorized Officer v. The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad and others 2, held that “since the order of attachment is obviously subsequent in point of time to the mortgage, the claim of the respondent cannot take precedence over the mortgage in favour of the bank and the only thing that the respondent can seek is the payment of any surplus, after adjustment of all the dues by the Bank”. 7. Thus, the law is well settled that the subsequent order of attachment passed by a Civil Court after the property was mortgaged to the Bank and after the sale of the said secured asset in the auction will not affect 2 W.P.No.44014 of 2018, dated 19.12.2018 8 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.25977 of 2025 the right of the auction purchasers. The auction purchaser is entitled for registration of sale certificate and he becomes absolute owner of the same. So, he got every right to alienate the property in whatever manner he likes. The said property cannot be included in the list of prohibited properties and the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register any sale deed relating to the sale transaction pertaining to the said property. If the said property is included in the list of prohibited properties and the auction purchaser is prevented from dealing with the property in whatever manner he likes, being the absolute owner of the same, it amounts to depriving him of his legal right to deal with his own property in the manner he likes, which is not permissible under law. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to forthwith delete the said landed property in an extent of Ac.5.43 cents situated in Krishna district, Nandigama Sub-Registry limits, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Gudimetla Village in old R.S.No.179/2 from the list of prohibited properties and register the sale deed that may be presented by the petitioners selling the said property to any third parties. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 06-11-2025 Note : L.R. copy to be marked B/o BMS