Orissa High Court
Bank Of Baroda vs District Sub Registrar on 12 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.26932 of 2024
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets .... Petitioner
Recovery Branch, Cuttack
represented by its Authorized
Officer cum Chief Manager at
Sector 7 CDA, Cuttack
-versus-
District Sub Registrar, Officer, .... Opposite Parties
Cuttack and others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Subrat Misra,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
for O.Ps.1 & 2
Mr. S. S. Kanungo,
Advocate. for O.P.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :28.02.2025 :: Date of Judgment :12.03.2025
A.C. Behera, J. The petitioner (Bank of Baroda) being represented
through its Authorized Officer-cum-Chief Manager at Sector-7 Branch,
CDA, Cuttack has filed this writ petition against the opposite parties
praying for quashing the letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5)
issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (opposite party No.1).
2. The case of the petitioner is that, as per the provisions of The
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act, 2002) along with
the rules thereof as well as Banking Rules and Procedures, the petitioner-
Bank sold the mortgaged properties through an e-auction to the opposite
party No.3 on dated 10.09.2024 as per certificate of sale (Annexure-1)
and forwarded a copy of the said sale certificate to the Registering Officer
(opposite party No.1) to be filed in Book No.1 of its office as per Section
89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.
As per letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5), the opposite
party No.1 refused to make necessary entries of the copy of the sale
certificate in Book No.1 assigning the reasons in the said Annexure-5
that,
"as the Senior Civil Judge, Dhenkanal in I.A. No.168 of 2023
(arising out of C.S. No.482 of 2023) has ordered on dated 30.11.2023 not
to change the nature and character of the I.A. schedule property till
disposal of the original suit vide C.S. No.482 of 2023 and as the property
noted in the sale certificate has been included in Lot-1 of the schedule of
property of the I.A., as such, the property has been blocked for any
transaction.
Therefore, necessary entries of the sale certificate in Book No.1
could not be made. The sale certificate is lying pending in this office till
the matter is resolved."
To which, the petitioner-Bank has challenged that Annexure-5 by
filing this writ petition.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner-
Bank, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and the learned
counsel for opposite party No.3.
4. On the basis of the rival submissions of the learned counsels of
both the sides, the question arises, whether during the pendency of the
civil suit and I.A., in which, the petitioner is not a party and on the basis
of status quo order passed in I.A. in respect of the auctioned properties
involved in the sale certificate, the refusal of the District Sub-Registrar
(opposite party No.1) as per Annexure-5 to file the copy of the sale
certificate in Book No.1 of his office is sustainable under law?
5. Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 clarifies that,
"every 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 immovable property comprised in the certificate is
situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No.1."
6. On conjoint reading to the Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89 of the
Registration Act, 1908, it is going to show that, a copy of the sale
certificate is to be forwarded by the Bank to the local Sub-Registrar after
completion of sale through auction for filing of the said copy of the sale
certificate in Book No.1 of the local registration office and the local Sub-
Registrar cannot refuse/deny for filing of the same in Book No.1 of the
Registration Office, for no other reason, but as per law, for preservation
of a record relating to the concerned auction sale in the said local
Registration Office of the Government. Because, the filing of the copy of
the sale certificate in the Book No.1 of the local Registration Office
becomes the records in the local Registration Office of the Government.
7. On this aspect, it has been clarified by the Apex Court in a case
between The State of Punjab and Anr. Vrs. M/s. Ferrous Alloy
Forgings P. Ltd. & Ors. decided on 19.11.2024 reported in 2025 (1) Civil
Court Cases 001 (S.C.) (at Para 20) that, as long as the sale certificate
remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable.
8. When, as per law, the copy of the sale certificate dated 10.09.2024
was forwarded by the petitioner-Bank after completion of auction sale to
the District Sub-Registrar (opposite party No.1) only for filing the same
in Book No.1 as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, but not
for registration and when, the copy of the sale certificate is not
compulsorily registrable, as the same is not a sale deed, then at this
juncture, the opposite party No.1 should not have refused to file the same
in the Book No.1 of his office only on the ground of pendency of the civil
suit and passing of status quo order in an I.A., in which, the petitioner
was not a party.
For which, the refusal made by the opposite party No.1 through his
letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5) for filing of the copy of
the sale certificate in Book No.1 of his office forwarded by the petitioner-
Bank cannot be sustainable under law.
So, there is justification under law for quashing Annexure-5 issued
by the opposite party No.1 to the petitioner through this writ petition filed
by the petitioner-Bank.
9. As such, there is merit in the writ petition of the petitioner. The
same is to be allowed.
10. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
The letter No.1613 dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure-5) issued by the
District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (opposite party No.1) to the petitioner is
quashed and opposite party No.1 is directed to file the copy of the sale
certificate dated 10.09.2024 forwarded by the petitioner-Bank in Book
No.1 of his office and to comply the consequential formalities thereof as
per law after filing of the same in Book No.1.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
12.03.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by:
UTKALIKA NAYAK
Reason:
Authentication
Location: High Court
of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Mar-2025
10:38:47
