# M/S EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 736
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No.36746 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-eva-agro-feeds-pvt-ltd-lucknow-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49520
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Registration Act, 1908 -
Sections 17(2)(xii) & 89(4) - Public
auction - After acceptance of bid, the sale
certificate was issued to the purchaser -
Before mutation, the sale certificate was
required to be registered and Stamp duty
was demanded - Validity challenged -
Held, S. 17(2)(xii) of the Act exempts the
certificate of sale granted to the purchaser
of any property sold by public auction by a
civil or Revenue Officer, from registration.
Hence it is clear that the sale certificate in
question is not compulsorily registrable
document - The certificate of sale itself
being
not
compulsorily
registrable
document as is clear from S. 17(2)(xii) of
the Act, the transfer of title in favour of
purchaser
is
not
vitiated
by
nonregistration of the certificate. (Para 18
and 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
12 All. M/S EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
737

## Text

736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that an order passed by an authority cannot
go beyond the scope of the show cause
notice. In fact, the Supreme Court in the
case of The Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P. and Others
v.
Kumari
Chitra
Srivastava
and
Others;
1970
(1)
SCC
121
has
categorically stated that the principles of
audi alteram partem are required to be
followed even if the same is burdensome in
nature. Justice S.M. Sikri in his inimitable
style stated as follows:

"Principles of natural justice are
to some minds burdensome but this price -
a small price indeed - has to be paid if we
desire a society governed by the rule of
law."

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we find that in the show cause
notice
dated
31.5.2022,
the
District
Magistrate, Sonebhadra had directed the
petitioner to show cause with regard to the
illegal mining over Plot No.824 Kha but
when the order impugned was passed we
find that it is with regard to Plot
No.421Kha. We also find that the plot,
which was mentioned in the show cause
notice, had no bearing with the order
impugned in the instant writ petition. In the
light of above, it is crystal clear that not
only is show cause notice badly drafted and
incomplete but also the order passed
subsequently is inherently misconceived
going way beyond the show cause notice
issued. Ergo, show cause notice dated
31.05.2022 and the order dated 20.6.2022
are quashed and set aside.

12. Needless to mention, it shall be
open to the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra
to initiate the proceedings afresh in
accordance with law.

13. With these observations, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 736
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No.36746 of 2023

M/S EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Lucknow
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Avneesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Registration Act, 1908 -
Sections 17(2)(xii) & 89(4) - Public
auction - After acceptance of bid, the sale
certificate was issued to the purchaser -
Before mutation, the sale certificate was
required to be registered and Stamp duty
was demanded - Validity challenged -
Held, S. 17(2)(xii) of the Act exempts the
certificate of sale granted to the purchaser
of any property sold by public auction by a
civil or Revenue Officer, from registration.
Hence it is clear that the sale certificate in
question is not compulsorily registrable
document - The certificate of sale itself
being
not
compulsorily
registrable
document as is clear from S. 17(2)(xii) of
the Act, the transfer of title in favour of
purchaser
is
not
vitiated
by
nonregistration of the certificate. (Para 18
and 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
12 All. M/S EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
737
1. Vishwanath Agrawal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2004 (56) ALR 264

2. Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. General
Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank;
(2021) 11 SCC 537

3. Sangeetha & anr. Vs The Sub Registrar,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore
and
others;
(2022)
ibclaw.in 268 HC

4. B. Arvind Kumar Vs Government of India &
ors.; (2007) 5 SCC 745

5. Smt. Shanti Devi L. Singh Vs Tax Recovery
Officer & ors.; (1990) 3 SCC 605

6. Writ Appeal No. 414 of 2023; M/S. Anirudh
Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs The St. Of Telangana
decided on 04.04.2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Avneesh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Ravindra Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner with a prayer to call for the
record from the respondent no.3 in
impugned letter dated 06.10.2023 bearing
No.S.M.N-Mzp-2023 to quash the same
and direct the respondent no.3 to enter the
sale certificate dated 15.09.2021 in Book
No.1 read with Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act 1908 without insisting any
further fee.

3. Brief facts of the case are that; one
HUVE Pharma Sea (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. filed
an application under Section 9 of the Code
against M/s Amrit Fees Ltd., i.e. corporate
debtor before the Company Law Tribunal,
on which the Tribunal passed an order
dated 19.02.2021 for the liquidation of the
corporate debtor and one Sunil Mohan
Acharya was appointed as the liquidator.
The petitioner company was incorporated
on 09.07.2021 under the provisions of
Companies
Act,
2013,
therefore,
he
submits its bids dated 16.07.2021 in the
auction in respect of the assets of the
corporate debtor (in liquidation). The
petitioner company was participated in the
auction and was finally declared as the
highest bidder. While the liquidation was
accepted to the parties as per the order
dated 12.08.2021, one of the financial
creditor, i.e. Punjab National Bank filed an
appeal before the National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal (in short "NCLAT"),
under Section 61 of the Code against the
order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the
Tribunal. The same was allowed in favour
of the creditor bank on 30.11.2021. The
aforesaid order was assailed by the
petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court
by filing Civil Appeal No.7906 of 2021
(EVA Agro Feeds Private Limited vs.
Punjab National Bank), which was finally
allowed in favour of the petitioner vide
order dated 06.09.2023. The sale certificate
has already been issued in favour of the
petitioner on 15.09.2021, thus the aforesaid
sale deed was finally affirmed vide order
dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Apex
Court.

4. Thereafter, the official liquidator
wrote
a
letter
dated
03.10.2023
to
respondent no.3, i.e. Sub Registrar, Tehsil
Chunar, District-Mirzapur with a request to
the concerned officer intimating that the
sale certificate was issued in terms of the
order passed by the Tribunal dated
12.08.2021 and a specific request was
made to accept the filing of the said sale
certificate dated 15.09.2021 in Book No.1
under
Section
89(4)
of
the
Indian
Registration Act, 1908. The officials of the
petitioner company approached the office
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the respondent no.3 and requested that
the process of mutation may be completed
in favour of the petitioner company on the
basis of sale certificate dated 15.09.2021.
The respondent no.3 advised petitioner that
in order to get mutation done, he would be
under obligation for paying the necessary
stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act.
The
petitioner
tried
to
explain
the
respondent no.4 that in terms of the settled
proposition of law, any such sale certificate
issued under the proceedings initiated by a
court, are liable for the benefit of Section
89(4) of the Indian Registration Act. When
the respondent no.4 was not convinced by
the explanation as given by the petitioner
company, they approached the respondent
no.2;
District
Magistrate,
Mirzapur,
apprising about the factual situation. The
District Magistrate marked the aforesaid
representation to the respondent no.4 and
directed to submit a report in respect
thereof.

5. Subsequently, the respondent no.4
vide order dated 06.10.2023 communicated
that the mutation in favour of the petitioner
company is possible only after deposition
of the requisite stamp fee. Firstly, on the
basis of the order passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of
Vishwanath Agrawal vs. State of U.P. &
others1 and secondly, there was a circular
issued
by
the
Inspector
General
Registration/Commissioner Stamp U.P.,
Allahabad
dated
01.10.2002,
which
required the petitioner to deposit stamp fee
in mutation proceeding in his favour. The
respondent no.4 has declined to file a copy
of the sale certificate in Book No.1 as per
Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908
on the ground that the sale certificate can
be filed only after payment of stamp duty
and registration charges. Hence the present
petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
before proceeding with the merits of the
case, has placed reliance upon Section
17(2)(xii) and Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act, which reads as under:-

"17.
Documents
of
which
registration is compulsory.-(2) Nothing in
clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (l)
applies to-(xii) any certificate of sale
granted to the purchaser of any property
sold by public auction by a Civil or
Revenue-Officer.
[Explanation.-A
document purporting or operating to effect
a contract for the sale of immovable
property shall not be deemed to require or
ever to have required registration by
reason only of the fact that such document
contains a recital of the payment of any
earnest money or of the whole or any part
of the purchase money.]

89. Copies of certain orders,
certificates and instruments to be sent to
registering officers and filed.-(4) 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
immovable property comprised in the
certificate is situate, and such officer shall
file the copy in his Book No. 1."

7. From reading the aforesaid Section
17(2)(xii), the legislative intent is clear that
the word "Civil or Revenue-Officer" would
also include a sale as held by the official
liquidator pursuant to the direction of any
court and would fall within ambit of
Section 89(2) of the Registration Act.

8. While dealing with the aforesaid
issue, learned counsel for the petitioner has
12 All. M/S EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
739
relied upon the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Adit Ram vs. Masaratun-Nissa submits that as per the opinion of
the Apex Court, a sale certificate is not an
instrument of the kind mentioned in Clause
(b) of Section 17 of Act III of 1877 and is
not compulsorily registrable and also the
Apex Court's view in Esjaypee Impex Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Asst. General Manager and
Authorised
Officer,
Canara
Bank2
opining that the mandate of law in terms of
Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4)
of the Registration Act, 1908 only required
the Authorized Officer of the Bank under
the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly
validated Sale Certificate to the Auction
Purchase with a copy forwarded to the
Registering Authorities to be filed in Book
I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act
and
order
of
this
Court
in
M.A.
No.19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29752/2019
dated 29.10.2021 opining that once a
direction is issued for the duly validated
certificate to be issued to the auction
purchaser with a copy forwarded to the
registering authorities to be filed in Book I
as per Section 89 of the Registration Act, it
has the same effect as registration and
obviates the requirement of any further
action.

9. Placing reliance upon the judgment
of Madras High Court in the case of
Sangeetha and another vs. The Sub
Registrar,
Pollachi,
Coimbatore
and
others3 learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the provisions relating to this
issue under Section 17(2)(xii) would show
that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil or
a Revenue Officer in evidence of a sale
conducted by way of public auction is not
compulsorily
registrable
and Section
89(4) imposes
an
obligation
on
the
Revenue Officer, who conducts an auction
sale to forward the certificate to the
Registering Authority to enable him to file
the same in Book-I maintained by him. The
said sale certificate should be entered in
Book
I
as
per Section
89(4) of
the
Registration Act.

10. In the present case, the sale
certificate as issued to the petitioner should
be entered into Book I as per Section
89(4) of the Registration Act without any
further requirements.

11. It is well settled that when an
auction
purchaser
derives
title
on
confirmation of sale in his favour, and a
sale certificate is issued evidencing such
sale and title, no further deed of transfer
from the court is contemplated or required.
In this case, the sale certificate itself was
registered, though such a sale certificate
issued by a court or an officer authorized
by
the
court,
does
not
require
registration. Section
17(2)(xii) of
the
Registration
Act,
1908
specifically
provides that a certificate of sale granted to
any purchaser of any property sold by a
public auction by a civil or revenue officer
does not fall under the category of non
testamentary documents which require
registration under sub-section (b) and (c)
of section 17(1) of the said Act. Therefore,
once the bid is accepted and the sale is
confirmed by the court in favour of the
purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and
the title vests in the purchaser. There is no
further requirement of any registration, thus
no stamp duty is to be paid for the same. In
support of his contention, he has relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of B. Arvind Kumar vs. Government
of India & Ors.4.

12. Thus, the certificate of sale issued
in a Court sale or by a revenue officer does
not need registration. The same has been
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
held by the Apex Court in the case of Smt.
Shanti Devi L. Singh vs. Tax Recovery
Officer and others5.

13.

In
the proceedings under
SARFAESI Act, the Court has gone to the
extent of saying that a sale certificate is not
an instrument of the kind mentioned in
clause (b) of Section 17 of the Registration
Act; the authorized officer of the bank
under SARFAESI Act should hand over the
duly validated sale certificate to the auction
purchaser with a copy forwarded to the
registering authority to be filed in Book no.1 as
per section 89 of the Registration Act. Once a
direction is issued for the duly validated
certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser
with a copy forwarded to the registering
authority to be filed in Book No.1 as per
Section 89 of the Registration Act, it has the
same effect as registration and obviates the
requirement of any further action. In support of
his contention, he has relied upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of
M/S. Anirudh Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. vs. The
State Of Telangana decided on 04.04.2023
passed in Writ Appeal No.414 of 2023.

14. Thus, in the present case, where
the official liquidator has forwarded the
sale certificate to the first respondent for
the purpose of filing a copy of the same in
book no.1 as per Section 89 (4) of the
Registration Act, 1908, such would be
taken as sale certificate issued by a revenue
officer and would fall within ambit of
Section 89(2) of the Registration Act. Thus,
the act of the respondent no.4 declining to
file a copy of the same in Book No.1 as per
Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908
is against the settled proposition of law and
provisions of the Registration Act.

15. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the letter dated
06.10.2023 is liable to be quashed and
direct the respondent no.3 to file the sale
certificate dated 15.09.2021 in Book No.1
readwith Section 89(4) of the Registration
Act, 1908.

16. Learned Standing Counsel could
not dispute the aforesaid submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

17. This Court finds that as long as
the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not
compulsorily registrable. If the documents
are used for any other purpose, it requires
stamp duty. The Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act contemplates only filing
of the sale certificates and, therefore, the
question of stamp duty does not arise. In
this regard, the Apex Court in the case
of Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has
held as follows :-

"14. We are the view that the
mandate of law in terms of Section
17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of
the Registration Act, 1908 only required
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 Section 89 of the Registration Act."

18. Section-17 of the Act specifies the
documents
which
are
compulsorily
registrable. Sub-section (2) of Section-17
excludes
certain
documents
from
registration. It is relevant to note that
Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act exempts the
certificate of sale granted to the purchaser
of any property sold by public auction by a
civil or Revenue Officer, from registration.
Hence it is clear that the sale certificate in
question is not compulsorily registrable
12 All. M/S EVA Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
741
document. The petitioner need not be
present personally for getting the sale
certificate
filed
in
Book
No.I
under Section-89(4)
of
the Act.
As
aforementioned, what is required to be
done is only to send copy of the sale
certificate by the Revenue Officer to the
Sub-Registrar Officer for getting it filed in
Book No.I maintained by Sub-Registrar.
Such a procedure be done in the matter in
hand.

19. The provisions under Section
89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 is clear
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 immovable property comprised in the
certificate is situate, and such officer shall
file the copy in his Book No. 1.

20. The procedure for registration is
different from procedure for filing of
documents under Section-89(4) of the Act.
For the purpose of registration, the original
of
the
document
is
presented
for registration and the same is to be
registered, whereas the copy of the sale
certificate is filed under Section-89(4) of
the Act. The original of the sale certificate
need not be sent by the Revenue Officer to
the Sub-Registrar for getting it filed
under Section-89(4)
of
the Act.
The
executants of the document, which is
required to be registered shall be present
for registration and
he
shall
have
to
undergo certain procedures for getting the
deed registered as contemplated under the
provisions of the Registration Act and the
rules
framed
thereudner.
Whereas
under Section-89(4) of the Act, only a copy
which has to be filed need to be transmitted
to the concerned Sub-Registrar for filing.
The procedure of presentation in person is
dispensed with regard to the sale certificate
under Section-89(4) of the Act because sale
certificate is issued by the public authority
discharging his official duties. When
document is registered, the entirety of the
document shall be copied out into the
relevant book and the original document
would be returned to the person who
presents the document with necessary
endorsement.
Such
requirement
is
dispensed in case of copy of sale
certificate, which is simply filed.

21. The certificate of sale itself being
not compulsorily registrable document as is
clear from Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act, the
transfer of title in his favour is not vitiated
by non-registration of the certificate. The
copy of the certificate filed in Book No.I
contains all the relevant details. The index
has to be maintained under Section-55 of
the Act. It would be open to inspection for
all persons. Looking into the relevant
provisions of the Act, it would be sufficient
to say for the purpose of this case that the
Sub-Registrar is required to file copy of the
sale certificate in Book No.I and no more.

22. On getting the sale certificate, the
Sub-Registrar shall file the same in Book
No.I maintained by him as per law. It is
needless to observe that if the petitioner
wants to get the sale certificate registered,
it is open for him to do so thereafter by
submitting necessary stamp duty and the
registration charges.

23. In view of the above discussion,
the Impugned letter dated 06.10.2023
bearing No.S.M.N.-Mzp-2023 is set aside.
The respondent no.3 is directed to enter the
sale certificate dated 15.09.2021 in Book
No.1 register as contemplated under
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 89(4) of the Registration Act at the
earliest, without insisting for any further
fee.

24. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 742
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 37911 of 2023

Smt. Uma Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vineet Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Local Body - UP Panchayat Raj Act,
1947 - Section 95 (1)(g) - UP Panchayat
Raj Rules, 1947 - Rules 256 and 257 -
Gram Pradhan - Recovery of Surcharge -
Three members Committee, holding the
enquiry, did not include the Chief Audit
Officer - Validity of recovery proceeding
challenged - Held, the inquiry has not
been conducted by the Chief Audit Officer
in terms of relevant Rules, therefore, the
entire proceedings are vitiated as the
same cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law. (Para 13)

B. Local body - Imposition of Surcharge
against Gram Pradhan - Show cause
notice was issued with premeditation -
Authorities have proceeded to mention in
the notice that in case the explanation is
found unsatisfactory then the petitioner
shall deposit the recovery amount -
Permissibility - Held, while issuing show
cause notice, the authorities must keep an
open mind as they are to act fairly in
adjudging the guilt - High Court set aside
the impugned order passed by the District
Magistrate. (Para 12)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dinesh Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2023(1) ADJ 181 (DB)

2. M/s Bcits Pvt. Ltd. Vs Purvanchal Vidhyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd. & anr.; 2022(7) ADJ 161 (DB)

3. Siemens Ltd. Vs St. of Mah. & ors.; (2006) 12
SCC 33

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner with a prayer to quash the
impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed
by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj and
a further prayer to direct the respondents
not to give effect to the impugned order
referred to above.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was elected Pradhan of Gram
Panchayat Thuthibari, Block Nichlaul,
District Maharajganj, whose tenure had
come to an end in the year 2020. A
complaint was filed by one Vijay Kumar
Maddheshiya
alleging
commission
of
financial
irregularities
in
undertaking
various
development
works
in
the
concerned Gram Panchayat. On the basis of
the aforesaid complaint, a three member
committee,
comprising
of
Consulting