This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner in S.A. No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, challenging the order dated 13-09-2007 passed by the said Tribunal.

2. The petitioner made an Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to set aside the possession notices, dated 10-03-2006, 25-03-2006 and 26-04-2006 issued by the respondent-bank, to declare that the said notices are illegal and contrary to law and to direct the respondents to pay compensation for illegally taking possession of the properties. The applicant is a private limited company having its administrative office at Visakhapatnam. It is engaged in the process of procuring and exporting seafood for various countries.

3. The company was sanctioned Rs.275 lakhs under PC/PCFC running account facility and Rs.150 lakhs under FDBP/FUBD/RVBA. The seafood industry suffered set back. Therefore, the industry faced serious problems. The company paid substantial repayments and kept the advance accounts as performing assets. The applicant also approached the bank several times for One Time Settlement in accordance with R.B.I. directives on O.T.S. The respondent bank issued a notice dated 14-12-2005 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For Short, 'the Act') demanding repayment of dues with interest within sixty days. Aggrieved by the notice, the applicant sent a reply seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The Notice does not disclose the name of the mortgager of each property and also the amount covered by principal, interest and expenses. The offer for O.T.S. is under active consideration of the bank. The applicant offered to repay a sum of Rs.160 lakhs. The applicant improved the offer to Rs.170 lakhs and the respondent No.1 again wrote on 23-03-2006 to improve the offer still further.

4. As per the possession notice, the respondent bank has taken possession of the properties, which include the factory shed and articles in the factory. No inventory of either movables or immovables is taken according to the provisions of the Act. Though the agricultural lands are exempted from the purview of the application of the Act, the respondent took possession of the agricultural lands under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. The evidence was adduced by both parties and documents were marked. The Tribunal observed that as per the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the details of the property are mentioned and the factory is situated in an extent of Acs.7.81 cents with buildings, plant and machinery and other assets thereon situated at P. Dharmavaram, Visakhapatnam District. There is a bifurcation given in respect of Acs.7.81 cents of land, but there is no mention whether it is agricultural or non-agricultural land. The other possession notices were issued in respect of other properties. The contention raised by the Tribunal is whether the property of Acs.7.81 cents is an agricultural or non-agricultural land. As per the sale deeds, NCC Blue Water Products Limited sold the property to the applicant wherein it was mentioned as agricultural purpose. Ex.A16 is the licence given by the agricultural market committee, Visakhapatnam, for the purpose of market of the products. Ex.A23 is the letter of sanction wherein it was mentioned that the property covered by item No.13 is described as land of an extent of Acs.7.81 cents with buildings, plant and machinery. The applicant filed cist receipts. Ex.B10 is the Memorandum of Understanding between M/s. NCC Blue Water Products Limited and the applicant for the purpose of conducting its business. By that time the plant and machinery were in existence in the land.

5. The Tribunal after perusing all the documents observed that the property was purchased for the purpose of running factory of processing of seafood and it cannot be treated as agricultural purpose and the entire land is being used for the purpos