1 APHC010024082026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 17th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 1603 OF 2026 Between: 1. M/s INCRED FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, Erstwhile known as KKR India Finance Services Limited H.No.6-3-1107 and 1108,4th Floor, BRR Complex, HSBC Building Raj bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 520082 Represented by its Authorized Officer Mr. Ganapuram Nagaraju. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Registration, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh-522237. 2. The SubRegistrar, Pakala, Tirupati-517112. 3. The District Registrar, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh-517501. 4. M Rajesh Kumar, S/o Vijayvelu Naidu 13-24, Rangaiahnaidu Street, Pakala Village and Mandal Tirupati District-517112 5. Namineni Prameela Devi, D/o M Lakshmaah Naidu Malepati W/o. Surendra babu R/o. House No. 11-122, MR Pally, S V Nagar, Tirupati Urban- Chittoor Andhra Pradesh-517502 ...Respondents 2 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in refusing to register the sale certificate dated 01-12- 2025 issued by the Petitioner under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of a RCC roofed building bearing Door No. 15/151 A, in an extent of 212 square yards in Sy.No. 1206/ID, Pakala Mandal, Chitoor District charged in favour of the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the petitioners statutory rights protected under the SARFAESI Act besides infringing the Constitutional rights of the Petitioner safeguarded under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith register the sale certificate dated 01-12-2025 issued in favor of respondent no.5 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to register the sale certificate dated 01-12-2025 issued in favor of respondent no.5 by the Petitioner under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in respect of a RCC roofed building bearing Door No. 15/151 A, in an extent of 212 square yards in Sy.No. 1206/ID, Pakala Mandal, Chitoor District pending the disposal of the writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: P BADRINATH Counsel for the Respondents: TANUSHA VENKATA LAKSHMI KURAPATI Counsel for the Respondents: Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 1603 of 2026 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in not registering the sale certificate issued by the petitioner under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as illegal, arbitrary and against to the rights guaranteed by the constitution of India. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that Respondent No.2, who is the registering authority refused to register the sale deed submitted by the petitioner in favour of the auction purchaser. 4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that as per the attachment order, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Pakala in E.P.No.50 of 2025 in O.S.No.14 of 2014, respondent authorities had included the subject property in the prohibited property list. It is further submitted that Respondent Nos.2 & 3 have not been received any document related to the petitioner seeking registration. Whenever the petitioner submits sale certificate with all 4 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 is contending that Respondent No.2 refused to register the sale deed. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner never submitted sale certificate or any document before Respondent Nos.2 & 3 for registration. However, considering the fact that against the subject property there is an attachment order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Pakala in E.P.No.50 of 2025 in O.S.No.14 of 2014, it appears that Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are not permitting the petitioner to submit the sale deed for registration. 6. The issue as to whether Respondent Nos.2 & 3, who are registering authorities 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 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 1 W.P.No.12458 of 2024 5 City Union Bank Ltd Vs. Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District and others2. 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 was created on 16.10.2021 and an order of attachment was passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Pakala in E.P.No.50 of 2025 in O.S.No.14 of 2014. As such, it is clear that the attachment order was passed subsequent to mortgage created in favour of the petitioner. Thus, in our considered view the said attachment order does not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following direction:- “Respondent No.2 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, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Pakala in E.P.No.50 of 2025 in O.S.No.14 of 2014, within a period of one week from the date of presentation of document”. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 2 2018 SCC online Hyd 370 6 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _______________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Dated: 17.08.2026 PKR 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA 143 WRIT PETITION NO: 1603 OF 2026 Dated: 17.08.2026 PKR