Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12479/2023 of SHAIK ABDUL RAVOOF Vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 1 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12479/2023 Between: 1. SHAIK ABDUL RAVOOF, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL GAFFOR AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.15 GUNTUR DISTRICT, 2. SHAIK KHADAR BASHA, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL GAFFOR
APHC010237632023
IN THE
WEDNESDAY
THE HONOURAB
WRIT
Between:
1. SHAIK ABDUL RAVO
41 YEARS, R/O. D
GUNTUR DISTRICT,
2. SHAIK KHADAR BAS
40 YEARS, R/O. D
GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. DR. ABDUL RAHEEM
AGED 37 YEARS R/O
GUNTUR DISTRICT
1. UNION BANK OF IND
DIRECTOR, UNION
NARIMAN POINT, MU
2. THE BRANCH MAN
BANK OF INDIA), PID
M), GUNTUR DISTRIC
3. THE AUTHORIZED O
BANK OF INDIA), PID
M), GUNTUR DISTRIC
4. THE TAHSILDAR, PID
522413.
5. THE SUB REGISTRA
522413. RR 4 AND
W.P.N
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPA
T PETITION NO: 12479/2023
OOF, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL GAFFO
D.NO.15-87, NEHRU NAGAR, PIDUG
SHA, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL GAFFO
D.NO.15-87, NEHRU NAGAR, PIDUG
M SHAIK, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL
O. D.NO.15-87, NEHRU NAGAR, PIDUG
...PETIT
AND
DIA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND M
BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHANBHAVA
UMBAI -400 021, MAHARASHTRA, IND
AGER, ANDHRA BANK (PRESENTL
DUGURALLA BRANCH, PIDUGURALL
CT.
OFFICER, ANDHRA BANK (PRESENTL
DUGURALLA BRANCH, PIDUGURALL
CT
DUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU
AR, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU
5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER COURT
RC,J
No.12479 of 2023
H
ATI
OR AGED
GURALLA,
OR AGED
GURALLA,
GAFFOR
GURALLA,
TIONER(S)
ANAGING
AN MARG,
DIA
LY UNION
LA (V AND
LY UNION
LA (V AND
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
S ORDER
RC,J
DT. 16.04.2026 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2026.
...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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the action of Respondents in not implementing the Orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 01-03-2021 passed in W.P.No. 3361 of 2021 filed by the petitioners father late Shaik Abdul Gaffor for the refund of the amount of Rs.11,11,000/- along with interest, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents herein to implement the Orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 01-03-2021 passed in W.P.No. 3361 of 2021 for the refund of the amount of Rs.11,11,000/- along with interest@ 24percent per annum from dt.01-01-2019 to till the date of realization, to the Petitioners and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 direct the Respondents 2 and 3 herein to consider and take necessary action on the Petitioners representation dated 05-04-2023 sent through Registered Post on 05-04-2023 for the refund of the amount of Rs.11,11,000/- along with interest @ 24percent per annum from dt.01-01- 2019 to till the date of realization, to the Petitioners, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass 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 permit the petitioners herein, to implead the Tahsildar, Piduguralla Mandal and the Sub Registrar, Piduguralla (proposed respondents 4 and 5 herein) as Respondents 4 and 5 in the above WP.No.12479 of 2023, for proper adjudication of the writ petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
RC,J
1.GP FOR REVENUE
2.V DYUMANI
3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in not implementing the orders of this court dated 01.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.3361 of 2021 filed by the petitioner’s father Shaik Abdul Gafoor for the refund of the amount of Rs.11,11,000/- along with interest.
2. The contents of the petition can briefly be summarized as under:
That father of the petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman, partitipcated in the auction initiated by respondent bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) proceedings in relation to a residential house bearing D.No.892/45.7.E and D.No.17-75 situated at Piduguralla Revenue Village and Mandal and was the successful bidder in the auction dated 15.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.11,10,000/- and accordingly he paid the said amount and pursuantly sale certificate dated 01.01.2019 was issued to him and when the same was sought to be registered, the same could not be done, since the said property was recorded in the Prohibitory List under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. That immediately father of the petitioners made oral demands besides issuing legal notices calling upon the bank to refund the amount along with interest and for no response, he filed writ petition vide RC,J
W.P.No.3361 of 2021, which was allowed on 01.03.2021 directing the respondent bank to intimate the petitioner whether a sum of Rs.11,11,000/- is being refunded to the petitioner with interest or not within one week. Their father made multiple requests and sent a legal notice on 12.05.2021 demanding that the bank to refund the amount, but the bank failed to comply. Ultimately, their father submitted a detailed representation dated 05.04.2023 which was received by respondent no.2 bank on 10.04.2023, but they did not respond. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The respondent bank filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the writ affidavit and further contending that the subject property is neither government nor assigned land and the said property is not in the prohibited list and as such there is no hurdle for registration of sale certificate. That the respondent bank is always ready and willing to execute the sale certificate and Shaik Abdul Gaffoor was advised to present the same by paying the applicable stamp duty and registration fee. That the Bank has already issued sale certificate dated 01.01.2019 in the name of father of the petitioners and delivered physical possession of the property and a sale certificate issued as per Rule 9(7) of the Security (Interest) Enforcement Rules is a complete and absolute sale for the purpose of the SARFAESI Act and the same need not be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
RC,J
4. Heard Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3-bank, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Registration and Stamps.
5. The learned counsel for both the parties advanced arguments based on their pleadings.
6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The written instructions of the Tahsildar, Pidugualla vide Rc.No.299/2026-DT, dated 27.06.2026 assumes significance for adjudication of this lis. For expediency the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder: “In this regard, it is submitted that, on verification of Revenue records, the Sy.No.892/45 to an extent of Ac.82.40 cents of Piduguralla village is classified as “Dotted land” and further the same was sub-divided from 1 to 9 on 16.06.1913 and subsequently on 28.01.1916, the sub-division No.7 to an extent of Ac.46.83 cents is again sub-divided from A to M. In the year 2016 the Sy.No.892/45-7 to an extent of Ac.46.83 cents was included in Prohibited list as “A.W”. Later, in the year 2019, during the re-verification and revision of Prohibited properties list the Sy.No.892-45-7 to an extent of Ac.46.83 cents is revised as Sy.892/45-7G to an extent of Ac.5.76 cents and 892/45-7J to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents and 892/45-7I to an extent of Ac.3.27 cents vide Rc.No.66/2019-E5, dated 13.02.2019 of the Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur. Hence, the present sub-division 892/45-7E having an extent of Ac.3.87 cents was removed from the prohibited properties list held under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908 at present.”
RC,J
8. From the above instructions, it is evident that the sub-division 892/45-7E having an extent of Ac.3.87 cents was removed from the prohibited properties list.
9. As per the contents of the counter and submissions made by Smt. V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, the respondent bank is always ready and willing to execute the sale certificate and father of the petitioners was advised to present the same by paying the applicable stamp duty and registration fee.
10. Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to get the sale certificate registered by paying necessary stamp duty and registration fee. He brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners are abroad and soonafter their return they will intimate the bank and the respondent bank may be directed to act upon the intimation given by the petitioners.
11. In the above, view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent bank to register the sale certificate within a period of four (04) weeks, from the date of getting intimation from the petitioners as to their readiness. The petitioners shall bear the stamp duty and registration charges. In case of failure of the bank in registering the sale certificate, they have to pay to the petitioners the amount paid by their father along with compound interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the RC,J
amount was paid, with yearly rests as held by Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.10.2024 in W.P.No.1204 of 2023( Inuganti Rangababu vs. Deena Bank/Bank of Baroda). There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 2nd September, 2026.
RR