BALAKRISHNA G. Vs. SUB-REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the 1st respondent as well as learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and perused the material on record.

(3.) A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 3rd respondent - Bank brought the subject property to sale by way of a public auction to liquidate debt owed by one M/s.Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and a public auction was conducted on 14/3/2024, in which, petitioners are the successful bidders and the sale in their favour was confirmed and a sale certificate dtd. 20/3/2024 was issued in favour of the petitioners. It is the grievance of the petitioners that when they approached the 1st respondent - Sub-Registrar seeking registration of the sale certificate executed in their favour, the 1st respondent issued the impugned Endorsement at Annexure-A dtd. 22/3/2024 refusing to take steps for registration of the sale certificate on the ground that a letter dtd. 1/10/2018 was written by the 2nd respondent - Enforcement Directorate (ED), which required permission to be obtained from the ED before proceeding for registration. Aggrieved by the impugned Endorsement dtd. 22/3/2024 issued by the 1st respondent refusing registration of the sale certificate, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of SBICAP Ventures Ltd, Vs. Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Bengaluru Zonal Office) and others- W.P.No.1360/2023 dtd. 20/3/2023(Bombay); and judgments of this Court in the cases of T.Bharat Gowda vs. State of Karnataka and others - W.P.No.7872/2024 dtd. 28/5/2024 as well as Sri.K.M.Srikanta vs. State of Karnataka and others-W.P.No.10530/2023 dtd. 29/5/2024.