JUDGMENT B. Rath, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S N Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. 2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 28.06.2018 of opposite party no. 1 and the letter dated 31.03.2016 of the opp. party no 2 declining to register the sale certificate obtained under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Bringing to the notice of this Court that the sale certificate obtained in the process of proceeding undertaken in exercise of SARFAESI Act, 2002, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities failed in appreciating the applicability of provisions of Regulation 2 of 1956 involving the case hereinabove. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referring to the judgment of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Sekhar Patra vs. Jitan Manki & others, (2017) 1 OLR 287 and in the case of UCO Bank and Ors. vs. Dipak Debbarma and Ors, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5502 , submitted that for the support of decisions referred to herein, the order impugned remain unsustainable. A prayer is accordingly made to this Court to interfere in the impugned order and set aside the same and further issuing suitable direction to opp. party no.2 for registration of the sale certificate. 4. Sri Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-opp. parties on the other hand taking this Court to the reason assigned in the impugned order submitted that for the reason assigned therein, there is no infirmity and further the property since belongs to Scheduled Tribe, the provision of Regulation 2 of 1956 is very much attracted. Sri Mishra thus contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring any interference in the same. 5. Considering the rival contention of the parties, this Court finds there is no dispute that the property originally belongs to Scheduled Tribe further involving a loan, involving a public sector bank inviting a proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 As a consequence non-clearing of loan amount, the property has been sold and consequently a sale certificate has been issued involving the petitioner-bank. 6. 6. It is at this stage, considering the decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Sekhar Patra (supra), this Court finds the law has been well settled observing, once a loanee failed to discharge the land even if he is a Scheduled Tribe, the bank becomes the owner of the mortgaged property for the clear provisions contained in the Regulation 2 of 1956 Further taking into account the decision in the case of UCO Bank and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considering a case of similar nature has settled the position that in the case of registration of sale certificate involving the Scheduled Tribe property, refusal of registration of property cannot be made on the ground of invalid sale deed This Court finds both the decisions are applicable to the case of the petitioner. As a consequence interfering in the orders at Annexure-2 & 3, this Court sets aside the same and directs the District Sub-Registrar, Keonjhar to register the sale certificate submitted by the petitioner by taking appropriate steps within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order by the petitioner. The writ petition succeed but with direction as indicated hereinabove Petition succeed.