TRUSHALI VAIBHAV SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      C/SCA/7359/2024                         JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7359 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
        Approved for Reporting              Yes     No
                                            Yes     --
==========================================
                    TRUSHALI VAIBHAV SHAH
                              Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
KHYATI A CHUGH(10132) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANGESH PANCHAL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                         Date : 20/03/2026

                          ORAL JUDGMENT

1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Angesh Panchal, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for
respondents.


2.       With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the present petition is taken up for <nal hearing
and disposal.



                              Page 1 of 7
     C/SCA/7359/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




3.      Present petition is <led by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908 (for short “the Act”) seeking the following reliefs:-


          “A. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
              mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
              direction or command in the nature of writ of
              mandamus, quashing and setting aside the impugned
              order / communication dated 01.02.2024 issued by
              respondent No.2 herein.

          B.    Your Lordships may be pleased to issue as writ of
                mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
                direction or command in the nature of writ of
                mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 herein to
                register the Deed of Conveyance of lease hold rights
                in respect of property bearing Survey No. 3124, Ward
                No.6, Sheet No. 276 admeasuring 343.75 square
                meters, construction area 159.76 square meters, Plot
                No. 1886/B, situated at Atabhai Road, Krishnanagar,
                Bhavnagar.

          C.    Your Lordships may be pleased to hold and declare
                that the charge of respondent No.1 be declared to
                have been extinguished over the said property.

          D.    Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other
                relief which this Hon’ble Court deem 5t and proper in
                the circumstances may also be given.


4.      Brief facts of the present case are that M/s. Raj Picture House
was desirous to obtain <nancial facilities from the Bank of Baroda and
for such purpose, it approached the Bank in the year 2013 and
properties bearing City Survey No. 55, Ward No.7 admeasuring
151.80 square meters and Survey No. 3124, Ward No.6 admeasuring
159.76 square meters were mortgaged. It is the case of the petitioner
that M/s.Raj Picture House failed to repay the <nancial facilities and,
therefore, the Bank proceeded to auction the said properties under


                                    Page 2 of 7
        C/SCA/7359/2024                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and after following due process of
law, the Bank issued public notices for auctioning the properties. It is
also the case of the petitioner that the auction was knocked down in
favour of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the
petitioner by email and pursuant to the aforesaid, the Bank executed
a sale deed in favour of the petitioner conveying ownership of the
lease hold rights and Bank issued a sale certi<cate under Rule 9(6) of
the SARFAESI Rules. It further the case of the petitioner that                      the
petitioner approached respondent No.2 for registration of the sale
deed / certi<cate, however, respondent No.2 refused to register the
sale deed and impounded the same on the ground that there was a
charge over the property of the State Value Added Tax Department,
which had passed an order of provisional attachment under Sections
45(1) and 45(2) on 22.07.2016.

5.         In light of the aforesaid facts, the following undisputed aspects
emerge:


(i)          The Bank has conveyed the lease hold rights of the said
             property to the petitioner under the provisions of the SARFAESI
             Act which stands concluded.


(ii)         The Bank also issued a Sale Certi<cate dated 18.10.2023 in
             favour of the petitioner.


(iii)        The said auction has not been challenged by any party,
             therefore, no interest survives of the original owner after the
             auction sale by the petitioner and the petitioner becomes the
             absolute owner with lease hold rights over the said property.



                                         Page 3 of 7
       C/SCA/7359/2024                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




(iv)        The petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration pursuant
            to    the    auction   held   on       11.10.2023     amounting          to
            Rs.1,96,90,000/-.


(v)         Pursuant thereto, a Deed of Conveyance of the lease hold
            rights was executed by the Bank in favour of the present
            petitioner as per Rule 9(6) of the SARFAESI Rules.


6.        Heard Mr.Parth Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents. Perused the material placed on record.


7.        Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the
same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also
submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent –
authorities is contrary to the settled principle of law and in
contravention of the catena of decisions of this Court. He has
submitted that the respondents have failed to appreciate the fact that
the SARFAESI Act will have overriding eIect over all other laws and
therefore, any past dues or charges of any crown debt cannot have
precedence over the charge of the <nancial institutions under the
SARFAESI Act. He has also submitted that respondent No.2 has failed
to consider the fact that the Deed of Conveyance of rights in respect
of the said parcel of land by the Bank in favour of the petitioner was
under statutory scheme and, therefore could not have refused
registration of Deed of Conveyance. He has submitted that the
respondents have failed to consider the fact that the charge created
with regard to the property for VAT is of no avail and has no relevance


                                     Page 4 of 7
      C/SCA/7359/2024                             JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




in the eyes of law. He has submitted that respondent No.2 has
exceeded its jurisdiction provided under the Registration Act by
refusing to register the Deed of Conveyance and register the sale
deed. He has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and
the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.


7.1      In support of his submissions, Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel has
relied upon the following decisions:-


(1)        Alok Kistuchand Agarwal Vs. Sub Registrar in Special Civil
           Application No. 10314 of 2021 dated 06.04.2022.
(2)        Odhavjibhai Mohanbhai Gadhiya Vs. State of Gujarat in Special
           Civil Application No. 9394 of 2021 dated 30.09.2022.
(3)        Patel Tusharbhai Amrutlal Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil
           Application No. 11182 of 2022 dated 07.01.2023.
(4)        Anant Corporation Vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil
           Application No. 25987 of 2022 dated 01.12.2023.
(5)        Madhaviben Jitendrabhai Rupareliya Vs. State of Gujarat in
           Special Civil Application No. 9565 of 2023 and allied petitions
           dated 04.01.2024.
(6)        Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs. State of Gujarat
           in Special Civil Application No. 17891 of 2018 dated
           23.09.2019.
(7)        Punjab National Bank Vs. Union of India and others, (2022) 7
           SCC 260.
(8)        Jigar Amrutlal Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC Online
           Guj 2083.


8.       Mr.Panchal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the


                                   Page 5 of 7
      C/SCA/7359/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




respondents has submitted that the Court may pass appropriate
order.


9.       The petitioner has also <led additional aJdavit along with the
letter dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Bank of Baroda wherein the
Bank has explained that the property was sold in public auction to the
petitioner and the sale certi<cate has been issued through the
concerned authorized oJcer, but still conveyance deed has not been
executed.


10.      Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
and the averments made in the petition and the submissions
canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the impugned order passed by the respondent – authority, the
contention of the petitioner that the Raj Picture House had obtained
<nancial assistance from the Bank of Baroda and it has mortgaged the
property as mentioned in para 5.2 of the petition and said Raj Picture
House has failed to repay the loan amount and, therefore, the Bank
has initiated proceedings under the debt recovery and the Bank has
taken the possession of the property in question. It is also the
contention of the petitioner that the Bank has initiated the
proceedings to recover the loan amount and thereafter, the Bank has
auctioned the property which was mortgaged and after completing
formalities and getting permission, the Bank has issued public notice
for auction of the property and in view of the public notice, the
petitioner was declared successful bidder and oIered to purchase the
said property. It is contended by the petitioner that the Bank has
executed sale deed and issued sale certi<cate in favour of the
petitioner and thereafter the petitioner approached respondent No.2


                                 Page 6 of 7
      C/SCA/7359/2024                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




for the purpose of registration of the sale deed, however, respondent
No.2 has refused to register the same on the ground that there was
charge over the property of State Value Added Tax Department, who
had passed an order of provisional attachment under Section 45(1)
and 45(2). Though the Bank has issued sale certi<cate, the
respondent – authority has to register the sale deed executed
between the petitioner and the Bank and the authority cannot refuse
to register the transaction. Now, considering the said aspect and the
decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the
opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned
order deserves to be quashed and set aside.


11.        In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondent No.2 is hereby directed to register the sale certi<cate /
sale deed executed between the petitioner and the Bank. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to
costs. Direct service is permitted.


                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 17:52:54




                                                         Page 7 of 7