Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 24 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16105 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
M/s. Eastern Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Mr. P. S. Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
(For the Opp. Party Nos.1,2 & 8)
Mr. Ranjit Sahoo, Adv.
(For Opp. Party No.5)
Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate.
(For Opp. Party No.6)
Mr. M. Kanungo, Senior Advocate.
Assisted by Mr. S. Das, Adv.
(For Opp. Party No.7)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 12.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner-
company praying for quashing the entry made by the Opp.
Party No.2 (Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala) in Book No.1 vide
Annexure-14 and the order of Mutation vide Annexure-17
passed in respect of the properties under Khata No.87 plot
No.279 (after mutation) corresponding to Khata No.10.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which
prompted the petitioner-company for filing of the same is that,
the petitioner company had incurred loan from several banks
and financial institutions including the Opp. Party No.6. Due
to non-payment of loans, a proceeding vide R.P.
No.106/2006/CTC was initiated against the petitioner-
company at the instance of Opp. Party No.6 before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, (DRT) Cuttack and on the basis of the
order passed by the DRT, Cuttack in that R.C.
No.106/2006/CTC, the secured properties of the petitioner-
company for the loan were put to e-auction Sale and the date
of such e-auction sale was fixed to 08.04.2024. In the said e-
auction Sale of the secured properties of the petitioner-
company, several persons including Opp. Party No.7 had
participated, in which, the Opp. Party No.7 became the
highest bidder and was eligible to purchase the auctioned
properties. Accordingly, a Sale Certificate in respect of the
auctioned properties was issued by the Opp. Party No.6 in
favour of the Opp. Party No.7 on dated 09.04.2024 after
receiving the money for the auctioned properties.
The petitioner being dissatisfied with the above e-auction
Sale challenged to the same by filing S.A. No.44 of 2024 before
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack.
In the said S.A. No.44 of 2024, the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Cuttack as per order dated 06.05.2024 directed the
Opp. Party No.7 not to take the possession of the said
properties till next date and directed the petitioner to deposit
Rs.1,00,00,000/- within 30 days in two installments as
Rs.50,00,000/- in each and 1st installment should be on or
before 05.06.2024 and 2nd Installment should be on or before
04.07.2024 and in failure of which, the said interim order
shall stands vacated.
Accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in
1st installment, but, the Opp. Party No.7 (purchaser of e-
auction Sale) filed a Writ Petition vide Writ Petition (Civil)
No.12905 of 2024 in this Court praying for directing the Sub-
Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) to make entry of the
Sale Certificate-cum-possession issued by the Opp. Party No.6
in favour of the Opp. Party No.7 in Book No.1 of its office.
3. Subsequent thereto, this Court disposed of the Writ
Petition (Civil) No.12905 of 2024 of the Opp. Party No.7
directing the Opp. Party No.7 to move the Sub-Registrar,
Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for entering its Sale Certificate
in Book No.1 and to consider the same as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of two weeks on production
of the said order.
When, the petitioner-company approached Sub-
Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for filing the copy of
its Sale Certificate in Book No.1, the Sub-Registrar,
Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) entered that copy of the Sale
Certificate in Book No.1 of its office.
On the basis of entry made in the Book No.1 by the Sub-
Registrar, Dharmasala, the petitioner filed Mutation Case
No.1803 of 2024 for correction of R.o.R of the properties
covered under e-auction Sale Certificate, the same was
rejected on dated 26.07.2024.
When, again the said Opp. Party No.7 filed another
Mutation Case vide Misc. Case No.2/2024 for the said
properties, the same was allowed on dated 03.09.2024 despite
objection of the petitioner. For which, the said order for
mutation passed on dated 03.09.2024 in favour of Opp. Party
No.7 is illegal. Because, in spite of attachment order dated
31.03.2016 of the auctioned properties in Certificate Case
No.1 of 2000 by the Collector, Jajpur, the Opp. Party No.2
illegally entered the disputed Sale Certificate in Book No.1.
Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying
for quashing the entry of the Sale Certificate by the Opp. Party
No.2 in Book No.1 vide Annexure-14 as well as the order of
Mutation passed on dated 03.09.2024 in Mutation Misc. Case
No.2/2024 stating that, entry in Book No.1 has been made by
the Opp. Party No.2 illegally and the order for mutation has
been passed on dated 03.09.2024 illegally.
4. All the Opp. Parties contested the writ petition filed by
the petitioner taking their stands that, the entry to the Sale
Certificate of Opp. Party No.7 made in the Book No.1 vide
Annexure-14 on being sent by the Opp. Party No.6 through
Letter vide Annexure-11 is not illegal in any manner. For
which, neither Anneuxre-14 nor Annexure-17 is liable to be
quashed.
5. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Opp.
Party Nos.1,2 & 8, the learned Senior Counsels for the Opp.
Party Nos.6 & 7 and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party
No.5.
6. It has been envisaged in Section 89 (4) of the Indian
Registration Act that, 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 in his
Book No. 1.
7. 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 said auction sale in the
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 record in the
local Registration Office of the Government."
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of
the following decisions:
I. In a case between Esjaypee Impex Private Limited
Vs. Assistant General Manager & Authorized
Officer, Canara Bank reported in 2021 (11) SCC
537 that, Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908
only requires the authorized officer of the Bank under
the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated
Sale Certificate to the auction-purchaser with a copy
forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in
Book I as per S. 89 of the Registration Act.
II. In a case between Sri Balaji, represented by Its
Partner D. Kavi Kumar Vs. I.G.R., Chennai &
Others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.L.J 736 (Madras)
that, SARFAESI Act, 2002 will not come under the
purview of conveyance, since it is not a transfer inter
vivos, it is a transfer by operation of law.
III. In a case between Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets
Recovery Branch, Cuttack represented by its
Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager at Sector
7 CDA, Cuttack Vs. District Sub-Registrar,
Cuttack & Others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 919
that, when a copy of the Sale Certificate is forwarded
to the local registration office, 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 which would form the
record in the local Registration Office of the
Government. Sub-Registrar was directed to file the
copy of the Sale Certificate in the Book No.1 of its
office.
IV. In a case between State of Punjab & Another Vs.
M/s. Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd. reported in
2025 Civ.L.J. 58 (SC) that, property sold by auction
sale in favour of highest bidder--Effect--Title of such
property passes to auction purchaser under Order
XXI, Rule 92. Only Sale Certificate is required to be
issued under Order XXI, Rule 94, which is merely
formal declaration of his right. By such auction sale,
no title is created or extinguished. As such, Section
17(1) is not attracted and registration of Sale
Certificate under Section 17(2)(xii) is not required.
Auction purchaser has only to send copy of Sale
Certificate to Sub-Registrar under Section 89(4) for
filing it in Book 1 as per Registration Act. Auction
purchaser is not required to pay any stamp duty for
the same. (Para Nos.13 to 20)
A notification has already been issued by the
Government of Orissa i.e. Government of Odisha, Revenue
and Disaster Management Department Letter No.45316/R &
DM dated 28.12.2023 superseding the previous Letter No.
letter No. 32814/R&DM dated 24.10.2016 and Letter No.
29204/R&DM dated 04.09.2017 forwarding the same to Addl.
Chief Secretary to Government to I.G.R. Odisha, Cuttack and
all Revenue Divisional Commissioners and Collectors about
the entry of Sale Certificate in Book No.1 of local registration
office as follows:
"the Law Department has been consulted in the
matter. The Law Department has advised that the
Registering authority is to make necessary entries
in Book-1 on production of Sale Certificate issued
by the authorurised officer without registration
and payment of stamp duty and registration fees
thereof."
8. Here in this matter at hand, when the copy of the Sale
Certificate dated 09.04.2024 was forwarded by the Opp. Party
No.6 to the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala after completion of e-
auction sale in favour of the Opp. Party No.7 only for filing of
the same in Book No.1 of the office of Sub-Registrar,
Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) as per Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908 but not for registration of the same,
because the copy of the Sale Certificate is not compulsorily
registrable and when it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar,
Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for filing of the same in Book
No.1 for no other reason but as per law for the preservation of
a record relating to the said auction in respect of the
properties indicated therein in its registration office, then, at
this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in
the ratio of the above decisions and Government Notification,
the filing of the Sale Certificate by the Opp. Party No.2 in Book
No.1 of its registration office after receiving the same cannot
be held as erroneous.
Likewise, the mutation of the properties covered under e-
auction Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser i.e.
Opp. Party No.7 also cannot be held as erroneous.
9. For which, the filing of auction Sale Certificate (the entry
of auction sale certificate) by Opp. Party No.2 in the Book No.1
of its registration office and mutation of the properties covered
under the said Sale Certificate in favour of the auction
purchaser i.e. Opp. Party No.7 till the said auction sale is set
aside or cancelled by the competent authority as per law, can
neither be illegal nor arbitrary. For which, the question of
quashing the said Annexures 14 & 17 do not arise.
10. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by
the petitioner. The same must fail.
11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
dismissed on contest.
12. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 24 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa,
