Sale certificates issued by Recovery Officers are not compulsorily registrable; filing under Section 89(4) suffices.

The petitioner was the successful auction purchaser of House Nos. 10 and 11, Khasra No. 1416/2 (part), Triveni Avenue, Indore, auctioned by Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, in proceedings concerning the loan account of Arihant Coal.

A sale certificate was issued in the petitioner’s favour and forwarded by the Recovery Officer to the registering authorities for filing in Book No. I under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The registering authority did not file/register or make an entry of the sale certificate in Book No. I. The petitioner therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the refusal and a direction to the authorities to record the sale certificate.

On 25 August 2026, the Court directed the State counsel to obtain instructions regarding the registering authority’s refusal.

Whether a sale certificate issued in favour of an auction purchaser by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is required to be filed or recorded in Book No. I under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, notwithstanding that it is not compulsorily registrable?

Whether the registering authority’s refusal to make such an entry was illegal and liable to be corrected through a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, holding that a sale certificate issued pursuant to a statutory auction is not compulsorily registrable, but the authorised or competent officer must forward a copy to the registering authority for filing in Book No. I.

Relying on Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, the Court held that filing under Section 89(4) is the legally prescribed mode and no further registration formalities are required.

Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhuambal reaffirmed that a sale certificate, once duly validated and filed in Book No. I, has the same effect as registration and obviates further action.

Under State of Punjab v. Ferrous Alloy Forgoings P. Ltd., mere filing under Section 89(4) is sufficient; the certificate is not compulsorily registrable, although stamp duty may arise if the auction purchaser presents or uses the original for another purpose.

The Court treated the earlier decision in Smt. Shanti Devi L. Singh as distinguishable because the subsequent Supreme Court decisions specifically addressed sale certificates arising under statutory recovery and securitisation proceedings.

The Court found that the petitioner had obtained a sale certificate through a statutory auction conducted by the DRT’s Recovery Officer and that the certificate had been forwarded to the registering authority.

Although the precedents cited by the petitioner principally concerned the SARFAESI Act, the Court held that their underlying principle applied equally to a sale certificate issued by the DRT’s Recovery Officer in recovery proceedings.

The statutory scheme did not require compulsory registration of the certificate; it required its filing in Book No. I under Section 89(4).

Therefore, the registering authority could not refuse to make the requisite entry merely because the certificate had not undergone ordinary registration.

Since the petitioner was the successful auction purchaser and the refusal obstructed the statutory consequence of the sale certificate, the Court considered the matter appropriate for relief under Article 226.

It held that the refusal to file or record the sale certificate in Book No. I was illegal and directed the concerned authorities to file/record the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.