1 APHC010249682024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3602] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 12399/2024 Between: 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BENZ CIRCLE BRANCH, VIJAYAWADA-520 010, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. M/S SIERRAS STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS, HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS PARTNERS 1)MR.AKULA GIRIDHAR GOUD, S/O.AKULA SATHAIAH AND 2)MR.ALAHARI KALYAN, S/O.ALAHARI VENKAT DOOR NO.6- 3-841/6, 1ST FLOOR, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, PUNJAGUTTA HYDERABAD-500 004. ...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 pleased topleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in not registering the Sale Deed by the petitioner Bank in favour of Auction purchaser/bidders, which is in violation of the provisions of the enforcement of security interest and recovery of debts laws and miscellaneous provisions (Amendment Act 4 of 2016 at 44 of 2016), 2 prohibiting the 2nd Respondent/S.R.O., Vuyyuru, Krishna District as violative of the principals of natural justice and in contravention of the Provisions of Act 44 of 2016 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 directing the 2nd Respondent forthwith to register the sale deed on behalf of the Petitioner Bank in favour of bidders/auction purchasers/3rd Respondent M/s.Sierra’s Strategic Solutions, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partners 1)Mr.Akula Giridhar Goud, S/o.Akula Sathaiah and 2)Mr.Alahari Kalyan S/o.Alahari Venkat in respect of the schedule properties under mortgaged with the petitioner Bank, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SATYANARAYANA DHARA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 12399 of 2024 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing to register the Sale Deed in favour of the auction purchaser(s)/bidder(s) as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts laws and Miscellaneous provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act 44 of 2016). 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent who is the registering authority refused to register the sale deed submitted by the petitioner-bank in favour of the auction purchaser. 4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent a counter affidavit has been filed. Basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned Government Pleader would submit that as per the attachment order, dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gannavaram in I.A.No.445 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2023 the 2nd respondent had included the subject property in R.S.No.184/6, 184/7, 184/8 and 184/5 situated at Penmakuru Village of Thotlavalluru Mandal of Krishna District in the prohibited 4 property list. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that the 2nd respondent office has not been received any document related to the petitioner-bank seeking registration. Whenever the petitioner-bank submits sale certificate with all enclosures and requisite Stamp Duty, Registration Fee and user chargers, they will take steps to register the sale certificate. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, it appears that the only point of difference between them is that the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank is contending that the 2nd respondent refused to register the sale deed. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent contends that the petitioner-bank never submitted sale certificate or any document before the 2nd respondent for registration. However, considering the fact that against the subject property there is an attachment order passed by the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gannavaram on 20.12.2023 in I.A.No.445 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2023, it appears that the 2nd respondent is not permitting the petitioner to submit the sale deed for registration. 6. The issue as to whether the 2nd respondent who is the registering authority can refuse to register the sale certificate on the ground that the attachment order was passed by the concerned Civil Court has already been considered by this Court on various occasions. In the case of M/s Manasa Hotels Private Limited Vs Union of India and others1, it was held that the attachment affected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the 1 W.P.No.12458 of 2024 5 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. The said view has been followed by this Court in the case of City Union Bank Ltd Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District and others 2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1779 and 1856 of 2025, wherein similar view has been taken. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, mortgage in favour of the petitioner-bank was created on 02.04.2014 and the attachment order was passed by the Senior Civil Judge Court, Gannavaram in I.A.No.445 of 2023 in O.S.No.46 of 2023 on 20.12.2023. As such, it is clear that the attachment order was passed subsequent to mortgage created in favour of the petitioner- bank. Thus, in our considered view the said attachment order do not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following direction:- The 2nd respondent shall register the sale deed in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 upon payment of requisite registration fee and other charges, if any, permitted under law notwithstanding the existence of the attachment order, dated 20.12.2023, within a period of one week from the date of presentation of document. 2 2018 SCC online Hyd 370 6 There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND ____________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM Dated: 20.07.2026 TM 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 12399/2024 Dated: 20.07.2026 TM 8