WP/7134/2026 of UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 August 2026

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, Union Bank of India, Rep.by its Authorized Officer, Asset Recovery Branch,4th Floor, Andhra Bank Building, R.R. Apparao Street, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520001. ...Petitioner AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Stamps and Registration Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.- 522238

2. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office-Tadepalligudem Nallajerla Road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.-534101

3. Mrs Allu Sujatha, W/o Allu Siva Kanaka rao, H.No.20C-19-5 Idhibilli Vari Street, Gandhinagar, Near Gowri Devi Temple, Eluru, West Godavari Distrcit-534002

4. Mr Siva Kumar Manepalli, S/o Venkateswa Rao, First floor, Dwarkanagar Road No.1Flat No.2 Kunchanapalli Village. Tadepalligudem Mandal West Godavari Dist-534101.

5. Mrs Manepalli Naga Veera Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Siva Kumar Manepalli, First floor, Flat No.2, Dwarkanagar Road No.1, Kunchanapalli Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal West Godavari Dist-534101.

6. Mr Gandikota Srinivasu, S/o.Gandikota Venkateswara Rao, D.No. 1-104/1, Mainroad, Kaspapentapadu village Pentapadu Mandal, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District-534166, ...Respondents 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 Writ or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not registering the sale certificate dated 01.12.2025 executed by the Petitioner Bank in favor of the 3rd Respondent in the e-auction dated 14.11.2025 conducted under SARFAESI Act in respect of schedule property as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, violative of the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and also contrary to Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act) and orders dated 17.11.2023 passed in Writ Petition Nos.6488, 7087 and 478 of 2022 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to remove the schedule property from prohibited property list and to receive, register and release the Sale Certificate dated 01.12.2025 executed by the Petitioner Bank in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of the subject matter propertyand 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 direct the 2nd Respondent to the schedule property mortgaged/secured in favor to the Petitioner/ remove Secured Creditor from the Prohibited Property list and to receive & register the sale certificate in favor of successful auction purchaser and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: RANGA SURYA PRAKASH RAO KOLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 7134 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 the 2nd respondent in not registering the sale certificate, dated 01.12.2025 executed by the petitioner-bank in favour of the 3rd respondent pursuant to the E-auction conducted on 14.11.2025 under the provisions of S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I Act in respect of the scheduled property as illegal and arbitrary.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for Respondent No.2.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent who is the registering authority refused to register the sale certificate submitted by the petitioner-bank in favour of the 3rd respondent.

4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that as per the attachment order, dated 16.10.2023 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in I.A.No.839 of 2023 in O.S.No.450 of 2023 respondent authorities had included the subject property in the prohibited property list. It is further submitted that 2nd respondent 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 Respondent No.2 refused to register the sale certificate. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner-bank never submitted sale certificate or any document before for Respondent No.2 for registration. However, considering the fact that against the subject property there is an attachment order passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in I.A.No.839 of 2023 in O.S.No.450 of 2023 on 16.10.2023, it appears that Respondent No.2 is not permitting the petitioner to submit the sale certificate for registration.

6. The issue as to whether Respondent No.2 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 1 W.P.No.12458 of 2024

Court in the case of 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-bank was created on 07.07.2021 and the attachment order was passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in I.A.No.839 of 2023 in O.S.No.450 of 2023 on 16.10.2023. 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:- Respondent No.2 shall register the sale certificate 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 16.10.2023, 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

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

____________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM Dated: 12.08.2026 TM

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 7134/2026

Dated: 12.08.2026 TM