HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2248 of 2025 Hadira Steels Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and others ….Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Pandey, Advocate through video conferencing and Mr. Rakshit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) By means of instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned order dated 12.06.25 passed by respondent no.3 which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (b) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to forward the sale certificate dated 30.12.24 to respondent no.3 for filing in Book No.1. (c) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to file the sale certificate in Book No.1. (d) Pass such order which this Hon’ble court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the present case. (e) Award the cost of the petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. The petitioner purchased a property in e-auction from the respondent no.1/Punjab National Bank (“the Bank”). A sale certificate has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner wrote to the respondent no.3/Sub Registrar (Registration) Roorkee-I, District Haridwar (“the Sub Registrar”) for making entry in the books kept by the Sub Registrar. But, by the impugned order dated 12.06.2025, the petitioner has been required to pay the registration fee, stamp duty etc. In fact, in the impugned order, reference has been made to an letter dated 05.05.2025 of the petitioner, which was not placed by the petitioner. 4. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to what contains in the letter dated 05.05.2025 of the petitioner? This letter has been tendered for the perusal of the Court. Let it be taken on record. It reveals that by its letter dated 05.05.2025, the petitioner had requested the Sub Registrar on the followings:- “(a) The date of Registration/to make entry in your books in the compliance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (c) no. 24164/2019 and Civil appeal no. 12527/2024 without paying stamp duty. (b) what is the other procedure followed according to your office for Registration of purchased property in Public Auction and how much Stamp duty require to pay for registration of property.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a sale certificate does not require a mandatory registration. It is merely to be entered in a Book-I of the Registration Office in view of Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 (“the Act”). Therefore, he submits that as of 3 now the petitioner only requests the Sub Registrar to enter the sale certificate in Book-I in the Registration Office. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this proposition. 7. Section 17 of the Act, gives a list of documents of which registration is compulsory. But, sub Section (2) (xii) of Section 17 of the Act, makes an exception with regard to any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer. This sub Section reads as follows:- “(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-Section (1) applies to- (i) ............................................................................. (ii) ............................................................................. (iii) ............................................................................. (iv) ............................................................................. (v) ............................................................................. (vi) .............................................................................. (vii) .............................................................................. (viii) .............................................................................. (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer.” 8. How this sale certificate would be entered into the Registration Office, Section 89 (4) of the Act, makes a provision in this regard, which reads as follows:- “89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed.- 4 (1).................................................................................. (2).................................................................................. (3)................................................................................... (4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy of his Book No.1.” 9. In fact, in the case of the State of Punjab and another Vs. M/s Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd and others in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3372, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adverted to this proposition and in para 20 of it, observed as follows:- “20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.” 10. In view of the settled law, since the petitioner has not insisted for registration, at this moment, he simply proposes to get the sale certificate entered in the registering office, which may be entered in view of Section 89 sub Section (4) of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 5 12. Impugned order dated 12.06.2025 is set aside. The copy of sale certificate submitted by the petitioner to the Sub-Registrar shall be filed in the Book-I in the registry office in view of Section 89 (4) of the Act. The Sub-Registrar shall accordingly take action on the copy of the sale certificate. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 29.07.2025 Jitendra