JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the refusal on the part of the respective Sub-Registrars, who have been impleaded as respondents, to enter the details of sale certificates issued to the petitioners by various banks and financial institutions in Book No.1, as required under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 . 2. The petitioners contend that when a certificate of sale of immovable property is issued by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or by banks and financial institutions, it cannot be treated as a conveyance liable to stamp duty, nor is it an instrument which is compulsorily registrable. It is contended that, as per Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , the copy of the sale certificate is liable to be filed in Book No.1 maintained by the Sub-Registrar, within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. In terms of Section 17 (2)(xii) read with Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , the Recovery Officer/authorized officer of the banks and financial institutions is only required to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction purchaser, with a copy forwarded to the registering authority for filing in Book No.1. Once a copy of the sale certificate is received by the concerned Sub- Registrar, he is obligated to file it in Book No.1, as mandated by Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 . This process has the effect of registration and obviates the need for any further action. The petitioners submit that the aforesaid procedure does not contemplate a document being presented for registration, but merely requires a copy to be filed or entered in Book No.1, which does not attract any stamp duty. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Inspector General of Registration in W.P. (C) No.1930 of 2023 and adopted in other cases. It is stated that, in exercise of powers conferred by Entry 63 of List II and Entry 44 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the State of Kerala has enacted the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 . Section 3 thereof provides, inter alia, that instruments executed in the territory of State of Kerala shall be chargeable with duty as specified in the Schedule to the Act. Section 3 thereof provides, inter alia, that instruments executed in the territory of State of Kerala shall be chargeable with duty as specified in the Schedule to the Act. Section 17 of the Act mandatorily provides that all instruments chargeable with duty executed in the State of Kerala "shall be stamped before or at the time of execution". It is stated that Entry 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 specifically refers to 'sale certificate' and the duty payable thereof is the same as applicable to conveyance chargeable under entry 21 or 22 of the Schedule. Therefore, sale certificate is an instrument liable to be charged with stamp duty and for non-payment of stamp duty, the sale certificate is liable to be impounded. It is further contended that the General Stamp Act (Act: No. XXVIII of 1869) and the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 are not in pari materia and therefore any decision rendered in the context of the former has no application in the context of the present cases. The counter affidavit states that, it is true that a Certificate of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document as per the Registration Act, 1908 . However, filing of sale certificate in Book No.1 has the same effect of registration. Since both processes involve similar services by the registering authority, the State is entitled to levy registration charges in exercise of powers conferred by Entry 47 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 4. Heard Sri. Mohan Jacob George, Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, Sri. S. Ranjith, Sri. Shiju Varghese, Sri. B.Vinod, Smt. Sanjeetha K.A, Smt. Nisha George and Sri. Ajmal V.A, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) and the learned standing counsel for the banks and financial institutions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer and others, 1990 KHC 548 : (1990) 3 SCC 605 : AIR 1991 SC 1880 to contend that the filing in Book No.1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act is not a "registration" that attracts stamp duty under the relevant Stamp Act provisions, but a ministerial act of record-keeping. The Court held that the term "Revenue Officer" in Section 89 (4) is wide enough to include Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) and when a TRO forwards a copy of the certificate of sale to the Sub- Registrar, the Sub-Registrar is obligated under Section 89 (4) to file the copy of the certificate in Book No. 1 and filing of certificate in Book No.1 tantamount to registration under the Registration Act. They also relied on the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Gupta , 1991 KHC 910 : (1991) 1 SCC 633 : AIR 1991 SC 401 , wherein the Supreme Court held that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil Court under Order XXI, Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of an auction sale of immovable property, is not an "instrument of sale" within the meaning of Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 so as to attract the levy of duty under the said Section. The decision in B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and Others, (2007) 5 SCC 745 was relied on to contend that a sale certificate, issued by a civil or revenue officer, is specifically exempted from mandatory registration under Section 17 (2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 . The decision in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asset General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, (2021) 11 SCC 537 is also cited stating that the Supreme Court has observed therein that the mandate of law under Section 17 (2)(xii) read with Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , only requires the Authorised Officer under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction purchaser, with a copy forwarded to the registering authority for filing in Book No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of this Court in Krishnan K.V. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2021 (6) KHC 576 : 2021 (6) KLT 377 : ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 312, wherein the grievance raised was that the Sub- Registrar refused to enter a Sale Certificate in Book No.1 on the ground that the statutory time limit had expired and that the certificate required registration with proper stamp duty under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 312, wherein the grievance raised was that the Sub- Registrar refused to enter a Sale Certificate in Book No.1 on the ground that the statutory time limit had expired and that the certificate required registration with proper stamp duty under Section 17 of the Registration Act. This Court, relying on the decision in Esjaypee Impex (supra), held as follows:- “7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has answered this aspect in the penultimate paragraph of the above judgment as under: “We are of 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 authorised officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over 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.” 8. It is, therefore, indubitable that it is upto the auction purchaser to decide whether he wants the sale certificate to be registered, or only its details to be entered in Book No.1. If he exercises the option for the particulars of the sale certificate to be entered in Book No.1, as per the provisions of the Registration Act, then obviously, he will have to hand over the validated sale certificate to the jurisdictional Registering Authority, who can enter it in the said Book, following due procedure. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and permit the petitioner to approach the 4 th respondent Bank, who shall re-validate Ext. P1 Sale Certificate as per law without any delay. The petitioner will, thereupon, be entitled to present the revalidated Sale Certificate before the 2 nd respondent Sub Registrar, who will then enter it in Book No.1, following due procedure, within a period of one week thereafter.” 6. In support of the contention of the petitioners that no stamp duty or registration fee is payable in respect of such sale certificates, they relied on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inspector General of Registration and Another v. G. Madhurambal and Another [ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969 ]. In support of the contention of the petitioners that no stamp duty or registration fee is payable in respect of such sale certificates, they relied on an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inspector General of Registration and Another v. G. Madhurambal and Another [ 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 969 ]. While considering an application for special leave against the Division Bench judgments of the Madras High Court in Sub Registrar, Neelangarai Chennai v. Tripower Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [W.A. No. 633/2022 and connected cases] wherein it has been held that the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act falls within the description of a 'Civil or Revenue Officer' under Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and in Inspector General of Registration v. Tripower Properties Pvt. Ltd. [W.A. No. 589/2022 and connected cases], wherein the Court held that a certificate of sale issued by the Administrator Committee appointed by the High Court need only be filed in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Registration Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has made a valiant endeavor to persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) but not successfully. It is logically so as this issue has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view followed for the last 150 years. It is logically so as this issue has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view followed for the last 150 years. We may refer to the judgments by the MADRAS High Court in the Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 (In Re: Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty, by the Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram v. Masarat-un- Nissa opining that 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 compulsory registrable and this Court's view in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asset General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank 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 Authorised 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 and order of this Court in M.A. No.19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29572/2019 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. It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Costs this time has been spared but will not be spared the next time. The needful be done in terms of the impugned judgment(s) within 15 days from today. It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Costs this time has been spared but will not be spared the next time. The needful be done in terms of the impugned judgment(s) within 15 days from today. The special leave petitions are dismissed.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in G. Madhurambal (supra), followed the decision of the Madras High Court In Re: Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 and its own earlier decision in Esjaypee Impex, and order in M.A. No. 19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29572/2019 dated 29.10.2021, wherein it was held that once such a certificate is issued and a copy is forwarded to the registering authority, it has the same effect as registration and obviates the need for any further action. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of this Court in Thomas Daniel v. The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others [Judgment dated 15.01.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 15095 of 2015 : 2024 KER 3851], wherein, pursuant to a revenue sale, the petitioner therein successfully bid the property in auction, following which the sale was confirmed and a certificate of sale of immovable property was issued in his favour. In compliance with the mandate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, the Revenue Divisional Officer forwarded a copy of the sale certificate to the Sub-Registrar for filing in Book No.1. However, the Sub-Registrar failed to act on it, citing non-payment of stamp duty as required under Article 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 . This Court, relying on the decisions in Shanti Devi and Esjaypee Impex (supra), directed the Sub-Registrar to file the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 without insisting on the payment of any stamp duty. 8. Finally, the petitioners relied on a more recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. [ 2024 KHC 6650 : 2024 SCC OnLine 3372 ] wherein the Court considered the question whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. After referring to the decisions in Shanti Devi, Pramod Kumar Gupta, B. Arvind Kumar, Esjaypee Impex and G. Madhurambal (supra), the Supreme Court held that a sale certificate issued by an authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable, and mere filing under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act by forwarding a copy to the registering authority is sufficient. In the light of these decisions, the petitioners contend that sale certificate issued by an authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable and the Sub-Registrars cannot refuse to enter the details of the sale certificate in Book No.1, maintained in terms of Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , and that the process of filing the copy of the sale certificate in Book No.1 does not attract stamp duty. 9. Sri. Mohammed Rafiq, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that sale certificate issued under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 answers to the definition of 'instrument' under Section 2 (j) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and is therefore chargeable to stamp duty. He relied on the decision in Sub-Registrar v. Nadirshah and another [ 2009 (1) KHC 722 : 2009 (1) KLT 630 : ILR 2009 (1) Ker. 659] wherein the Division Bench of this Court after referring to the decision in Shanti Devi (supra) held that the Sub-Registrar being a “public officer” referred to in Section 34 of the Kerala Stamp Act was justified in returning the copy of the sale certificate forwarded to him under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act and that the purchaser is bound to pay stamp duty. Sri.Rafiq also referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. George Jacob [ 2005 (4) KLT 709 ] wherein it has been held that an instrument chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act has to be stamped on the date of its execution as defined in Section 2(f) i.e., the date on which it is signed. Sri.Rafiq referred to the decision in Varghese v. Sub-Registrar [ 2007 (2) KLT 223 ] and submitted that by virtue of Section 30(e) of the Kerala Stamp Act, the liability to pay stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued by the recovery officer is on the purchaser of the property and he is bound to furnish stamp paper for the value in terms of Article 16 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act. Sri.Rafiq submits that though a certificate of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document as per the Registration Act, 1908 , the filing of sale certificate in Book No.1 has the same effect of registration and is a compulsorily registrable document under the Transfer of Property Act. He referred to the decision in Reghunath and Others v. Kedar Nath, (1969) 1 SCC 497 , wherein a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that documents required to be registered under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, though not under the Registration Act, would still fall within the scope of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, if such documents are not registered, they are inadmissible as evidence of any transaction affecting the immovable property mentioned therein. Sri.Rafiq submits that in G.Madhurambal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to the decision of the Madras High Court In Re: Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875, opined that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty. He submits that the issue considered by the Madras High Court In Re: Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 was whether a sale certificate issued under Sections 35 and 40 of the Madras Rent Recovery Act, 1865 is chargeable to stamp duty under the General Stamp Act, 1869. The General Stamp Act, 1869 which fell for consideration of the Madras High Court In Re: Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 was repealed and re-enacted as Stamp Act, 1879 and as per Article 16 of the Schedule to the said Act, the certificate of sale is an instrument chargeable to stamp duty and the propositions of law laid down In Re: Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 were superseded and the said position was never brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Madhurambal (supra). Accordingly, it is contended that, in G.Madhurambal (supra), interplay of provisions contained in the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, Stamp Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules were not considered and the decision is per incuriam. Sri.Rafiq refers to the Seven Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In Re Interplay between Arbitration Agreements Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp Act, 1899 (NN Global (3)) [ (2024) 6 SCC 1 ] and submits that the said decision has settled the legal position that a document chargeable to stamp duty shall be stamped at the time when it was executed and that a copy of an unstamped instrument which is chargeable to stamp duty cannot be acted upon by a public officer under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Interpreting Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an instrument not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose and it shall not be acted upon, registered or authenticated and that, Section 35 is significant because it gives teeth to the Stamp Act by ensuring that stamp duty is paid before rights and obligations arising out of the concerned instrument are enforced. Section 35 states that an instrument not duly stamped and chargeable with duty shall not be admitted in evidence by any person having by law or by consent of the parties the authority to receive evidence. The Court also held that, “the words 'for any purpose' mean that the instrument cannot be relied upon for a collateral purpose either. Further, the instrument shall not be acted upon registered or authenticated by such person or by any public officer, unless it is stamped. The words 'acted upon' are with reference to the acts of proceedings before such officer or public officer, as the case may be”. The Court further observed that a copy of an instrument cannot be validated and acted upon, albeit where multiple copies are prepared and signed and sent to respective parties. 10. Sri. Rafiq refers to Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, to emphasize that the sale of immovable property under the SARFAESI Act does not result in an automatic transfer upon acceptance of the highest bid. The sale is subject to confirmation by the secured creditor, and no sale can be confirmed if the highest bid is below the reserve price. The sale is subject to confirmation by the secured creditor, and no sale can be confirmed if the highest bid is below the reserve price. The highest bidder must initially deposit 25% of the sale amount, with the balance payable within 15 days of confirmation or within an extended period. If the purchaser defaults, the deposit is forfeited and the property is resold. Under Rule 9(6), the authorized officer issues a sale certificate only after confirmation by the secured creditor and full payment by the purchaser. Delivery of possession and issuance of the certificate occur simultaneously, and the officer must sign the certificate, acknowledging full payment and transfer of possession. Sri. Rafiq refers to the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L.J. Johnson [ AIR 1958 SC 289 ] wherein it was held that on approval of the bid, binding contract for sale of the property to the auction purchaser comes into existence and then the provision as to the sale certificate would indicate that only upon the issue of it a transfer of property takes place. Therefore, certificate of sale so issued is a compulsorily registrable document as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Sri. Rafiq submits that the certificate of sale issued under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, falls within the definition of 'instrument' under Section 2(j) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 , and is therefore chargeable to stamp duty. 11. Referring to the decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Limited (supra), Sri. Rafiq submits that the finding therein that no stamp duty is payable when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded to the Registrar under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , runs contrary to the findings in NN Global (3) (supra). He contends that the seven-Judge Bench decision in NN Global (3) will prevail over the two-Judge Bench decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Limited (supra). 12. The question involved in the writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to have copies of their sale certificates, issued by various banks and financial institutions, filed in Book No.1 under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , without insisting on payment of stamp duty. 13. 12. The question involved in the writ petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to have copies of their sale certificates, issued by various banks and financial institutions, filed in Book No.1 under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , without insisting on payment of stamp duty. 13. Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 deals with issuance of sale certificate by the authorized officer of the bank or financial institution. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 provides that on confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorized officer exercising the power of sale shall issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser in the form given in Appendix-V to the Rules. It is to be noted that the SARFAESI Act or the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 does not provide for payment of stamp duty for issuance of certificate of sale. 14. Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 17 (2) deals with the exception thereof. Section 17 (2)(xii) of the Registration Act reads as follows: “17. Documents of which registration is compulsory: (2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to- (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer.” Section 89(4) of the Registration Act reads as follows: “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.” 15. Section 51 of the Registration Act deals with Register-books to be kept in several offices and Book 1 deals with 'Register of non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property'. Section 51(2) provides that, in Book 1 shall be filed - (i) true copies of all documents; and (ii) all memorandum, registered under Section 17, 18 and 89 which relates to immovable property and are not wills. 16. Section 51(2) provides that, in Book 1 shall be filed - (i) true copies of all documents; and (ii) all memorandum, registered under Section 17, 18 and 89 which relates to immovable property and are not wills. 16. Section 55(2) ensures that there is a proper indexing system for all documents filed in Book No. 1. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act provides that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil or a Revenue Officer in evidence of sale by public auction is not compulsorily registrable. Section 89(4) of the Registration Act provides that every Revenue Officer, who conducts an auction sale shall forward the certificate to the registering authority to enable him to file the same in Book No.1 maintained by him. 17. Section 3 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 deals with 'instruments chargeable with duty and reads as follows: “3. Instruments chargeable with duty.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty therefore, respectively, that is to say- (a) every instrument mentioned in the Schedule which not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in the territories of the State of Kerala on or after commencement of this Act. (b) xxxxxx.” Section 17 of the Kerala Stamp Act provides that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in the State of Kerala shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. Entry 16 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act deals with certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Court or by the Government, Collector, other Revenue Officer or a Civil Officer and provides that the duty payable is the same duty as on a conveyance chargeable under Entries 21 and 22 of the Schedule. It is to be noted that there is no entry in the Stamp Act pertaining to a sale certificate issued by the authorized officer under the SARFAESI Act. Then the question to be considered is whether, a certificate of sale issued by a Revenue Officer or Civil Officer can be treated as a conveyance and requires registration. The term Revenue or Civil Officer is not defined either under the Stamp Act or under the Registration Act. Then the question to be considered is whether, a certificate of sale issued by a Revenue Officer or Civil Officer can be treated as a conveyance and requires registration. The term Revenue or Civil Officer is not defined either under the Stamp Act or under the Registration Act. In Shanti Devi (supra), the Supreme Court held that the term "Revenue Officer" in Section 89 (4) is wide enough to include Tax Recovery Officer and when a TRO forwards a copy of the certificate of sale to the Sub- Registrar, the Sub-Registrar is obligated under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act to file the copy of the certificate in Book No. 1 and filing of certificate in Book No.1 tantamount to registration under the Registration Act. In B. Arvind Kumar (supra), the Honb'le Supreme Court held that a sale certificate, issued by a Civil or Revenue Officer, is specifically exempted from mandatory registration under Section 17 (2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 . The Madras High Court in G. Madhurambal (MANU/TN/8817/2021) held that the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act falls within the description of a "Civil or Revenue Officer" under Section 17 (2) of the Registration Act. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it can be concluded that an authorized officer who conducts a sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer in terms of Section 17 (2)(xii) read with Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 . In G. Madhurambal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the consistent position of law is that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty. 18. The Next question to be considered is whether a sale certificate is an "instrument" that is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act, 1908 . 19. In Pramod Kumar Gupta, the Supreme Court held that a certificate of sale issued by a Civil Court under Order XXI, Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of an auction sale of immovable property, is not an "instrument of sale" within the meaning of Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 so as to attract the levy of duty under the said Section. The Court held that issuance of sale certificate does not create or extinguish any title and thus would not attract any stamp duty which is applicable qua an instrument of sale of immovable property. In Shanti Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the certificate of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document in lieu of Section 17 (2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 , the transfer of title in favour of the auction purchaser is not vitiated by the non registration of the sale certificate. In Arvind Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court considering the scope of Section 17 (2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 held that a sale certificate is merely an evidence of title and it does not convey title and therefore does not require registration under Section 17 (1) of the Registration Act. The Court observed as follows: “...When a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the court and 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. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. 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. S.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 S.17(1) of the said Act. We therefore hold that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff's father for want of a registered deed of transfer.” 20. We therefore hold that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the sale certificate did not convey any right, title or interest to plaintiff's father for want of a registered deed of transfer.” 20. In Esjaypee Impex (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the mandate of law that flows from a combined reading of Sections 17(2) (xii) and 89(4) of the Registration Act respectively is that the auction purchaser is entitled to receive the original sale certificate and a copy of the same is required to be forwarded to the Sub- Registrar for the purpose of filing in Book No. 1 as per the Registration Act, implying it is not mandatorily registrable like other conveyances. In G. Madhurambal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the consistent position of law is that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty and 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 1 as per Section 89 of the Registration Act, it has the same effect as registration and requirement of any further action is obviated. In Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court explicitly stated that a sale certificate issued by the authorized officer is not compulsorily registrable, and mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient. In paragraph 20 of the judgment, the Court observed as follows: “20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under S.89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Art.18 and Art.23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.” 21. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.” 21. The final question to be considered is whether the filing of a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1, as mandated by Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 attracts stamp duty. In Shanti Devi (supra), the Supreme Court held that the filing in Book No. 1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act is not a "registration" that attracts stamp duty under the relevant Stamp Act provisions. In Pramod Kumar Gupta (supra), the Supreme Court held that issuance of sale certificate does not create or extinguish any title and thus would not attract any stamp duty which is applicable qua an instrument of sale of immovable property. In G. Madhurambal (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the consistent position of law is that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty. In Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that mere act of filing a copy of sale certificate under Section 89 (4) does not attract stamp duty and only if the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purposes that the requirement of stamp duty would arise. 22. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is trite that a certificate of sale of immovable property issued by the authorised officer of banks or financial institutions does not constitute a conveyance, nor is it an instrument that is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act. Furthermore, the mere act of filing a copy of the sale certificate in Book No. 1, as mandated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, does not attract stamp duty. It is so declared. 23. The contention of Sri.Rafiq that the decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra) is contrary to the findings in NN Global (3) cannot be sustained. In NN Global (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question whether an arbitration agreement under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was not stamped would be rendered void ab initio as well as the acceptability of the same in evidence. In NN Global (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the question whether an arbitration agreement under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was not stamped would be rendered void ab initio as well as the acceptability of the same in evidence. The Court held that a document chargeable to stamp duty must be duly stamped at the time of execution and that an unstamped instrument cannot be acted upon by a public officer under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. In Ferrous Alloy Forgings (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it, in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act. The question involved in the present cases is whether the petitioners are entitled to get their sale certificate issued by the authorized officer be filed in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act without insisting for stamp duty. The contention of Sri Rafiq that the decision in G. Madhurambal (supra) is per incuriam because it relied on the Madras High Court’s judgment In Re: Board of Revenue No. 2 of 1875, which was based on the repealed General Stamp Act, 1869, also cannot be sustained. It should be noted that, in G. Madhurambal (supra), apart from the propositions of law laid down In Re: Board of Revenue No. 2 of 1875, the Court also relied on the more recent decision in Esjaypee Impex (supra) and the order dated 29.10.2021 in M.A. No. 19262/2021 in SLP(C) No. 29572/2019. 24. In view of the categorical pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited above, the Sub-Registrars cannot refuse to enter the details of the sale certificate in Book No.1 maintained in terms of the provisions contained in Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act. 24. In view of the categorical pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited above, the Sub-Registrars cannot refuse to enter the details of the sale certificate in Book No.1 maintained in terms of the provisions contained in Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respective Sub-Registrars who have been impleaded as respondents, to file the copy of the respective sale certificates of the petitioners issued by various banks and financial institutions or the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, in Book No.1, as required under Section 89 (4) of the Registration Act, 1908 , without insisting for payment of any stamp duty, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment If any sale certificate requires revalidation, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the concerned banks or financial institutions which shall revalidate the sale certificate as per law and the petitioners will thereupon be entitled to present the same before the Sub-Registrar, who will file the copy of the revalidated sale certificate in Book No.1, within a period of one month thereafter. If any attachment has been obtained, over any property, which is subject matter of sale, the right of the persons who have obtained attachment will not be foreclosed by this judgment and it will be open to them to pursue their claims in accordance with law. 25. The writ petitions are disposed of.