Allowed

Canara Bank v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/25944/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by Canara Bank challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register a Sale Certificate under the SARFAESI Act. The Sub-Registrar denied registration because the property was in a prohibited list following a later attachment order by a Civil Court. The Court held that since the mortgage predated the attachment, the Civil Court order did not affect the bank's rights. The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the deed.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent is directed to register the sale deed within one week of presentation, upon payment of requisite fees, notwithstanding the existence of the attachment order passed on 31.01.2025.

Canara Bank Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010472762026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, T HE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 25944 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

CANARA BANK, Body C orporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, havin g its Asset Recovery Management Br a nch at Vijayawada, represented by its Authorized Officer, Nagraj C. Meeshi.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF AND H RA PRADESH, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration a n d Stamps) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, A. P . 522237

¶12

The Joint SubRegistrar, Narasaraopet Registration Office, Paln a du District, Andhra Pradesh 522601

¶13

Sri Chandolu Venkat a Mani Krishna Borrower, S/o Ven k ata Rama Narasimharao, D.No. 3-7- 2 3/101, Pathuru, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh 522601

¶14

Smt Chandolu Leela M a dhavi Borrower, W/o Venkata Mani Kri s hna, D.No. 3-7-23/101, Pathuru, Narasaraopet, Palnadu District, Andhr a Pradesh 522601.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

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 toIssue a Writ, Order or Direction, 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 18.08.2026 issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the successful auction purchaser, on the ground that the subject property is included in the prohibited property list under Section 22-C of the Registration Act, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.12039 of 2026, dated 20.07.2026, and consequently a) Direct the 2nd respondent to delete or remove the subject property from the prohibited property list insofar as the said prohibition is based on the subsequent attachment and b) Direct the 2nd respondent to receive, process, register and release the Sale Certificate dated 18.08.2026 issued by the petitioner Bank in favour of the successful auction purchaser in respect of the subject property.

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶18

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 direct Respondent-2 to allow the Petitioner Bank to proceed with registration of the Sale Certificate arising out of SARFAESI proceedings pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: PAVAN KUMAR ARADHYULA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order:

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO: 25944 OF 2026

¶23

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in placing the schedule property in prohibited property list as illegal, arbitrary and violative of provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for Respondent No.2.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent who is the registering authority refused to register the sale deed submitted by the petitioner-bank in favour of the auction purchaser.

¶27

Sri K.Bhagat Singh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would submit that as per the attachment order, dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet, in I.A.No.126 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2025, the 2^nd respondent had included the subject property in the prohibited property list. It is further submitted that the 2^nd respondent office has not been received any document related to the petitioner-bank seeking

¶28

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.

¶29

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it appears that the only point of difference between them is that the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank is contending that the 2^nd respondent refused to register the sale deed. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent contends that the petitioner-bank never submitted sale certificate or any document before the 2^nd respondent for registration. However, considering the fact that against the subject property there is an attachment order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet on 31.01.2025 in I.A.No.126 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2025, it appears that the 2^nd respondent is not permitting the petitioner to submit the sale deed for registration.

¶30

The issue as to whether the 2^nd respondent who is the registering authority 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

¶31

1 W.P.No.12458 of 2024

¶32

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 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1779 and 1856 of 2025, wherein similar view has been taken.

¶33

Admittedly, in the present case, mortgage in favour of the petitionerbank was created on 28.11.2022 and the attachment order was passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet on 31.01.2025 in I.A.No.126 of 2025 in O.S.No.26 of 2025 on 31.01.2025. 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 does not affect the rights of the secured creditor over the subject property.

¶34

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following direction:-

¶35

The 2^nd respondent 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, dated 31.01.2025, within a period of one week from the date of presentation of document.

¶36