Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner-Bank has impugned the order dated 14th August, 2015 passed by the respondent no.1/ Additional District Magistrate in Revenue Case No.113/2014, thereby declaring that the property of which possession is to be taken, is an 'agricultural land' and rejecting the claim of the petitioner-Bank to secure possession of the land mortgaged with the petitioner-Bank and closing the case, in view of the provisions of Section 31(i) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Securitisation Act' for the purpose of brevity).

Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the instant petition, are as under :

3. On 4.10.2010, the respondent no.1 Company was granted the term loan of Rs. 70 crores and cash credit limit of Rs. 5 crores for doing the business of Dairy Farm. On 1.11.2010 the respondent no.2 Company, in consideration of the said term loan and cash credit limit, executed various documents. On 1.11.2010, the respondent nos. 3 to 6 in their individual capacity, along with respondent nos. 7 to 9 executed separate guarantee deeds and thereby agreed to guarantee the repayment of credit sum of Rs. 75 crores to the petitioner-Bank. On 30.8.2011, the respondent nos.4 and 5 created an equitable mortgage in respect of their seven immovable properties to secure the repayment of the said loan facilities aggregating to Rs. 75 crores. The respondent no.5 and one Shri Sushil Nair created an equitable mortgage in respect of their immovable property located at Kerala to secure the repayment of the said loan facility aggregating to Rs. 75 crores. The respondent no.3 as Director of the respondent no.8 created an equitable mortgage in respect of his immovable property to secure the repayment of the said loan facilities aggregating to Rs.75 crores. The respondent no.9 created an equitable mortgage in respect of his immovable property to secure the repayment of the said loan facility aggregating to Rs. 75 crores. On 17.7.2012 the respondent nos. 2 to 9 gave a letter to the petitioner-Bank and thereby acknowledged their liability to repay the amount due to the petitioner-Bank. On 2.5.2013 the petitioner-Bank classified the account of respondent no.2 company as nonperforming asset as per the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. On 20.8.2013, the petitioner-Bank issued a demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Securtisation Act, calling upon the respondent nos. 2 to 9 to pay the amount of Rs. 70,85,86,832. 85 paise jointly and severally, to the petitioner-Bank. On 14.10.2013, the respondent nos. 2 to 9 raised the objection u/s 13(3) of the Securitisation Act to the said demand notice. On 22.10.2013, the petitioner-Bank filed the O.A. No.119/2013 against the recovery of Rs. 76,42,44,383.85 paise jointly and severally and for sale of the mortgage property. The petitioner-Bank u/s 13(3A) of the Securitisation Act replied to the said objection on 23.10.2013. The petitioner-Bank then issued a notice under subsection (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act, in respect of seven mortgaged properties, located in Nagpur and took a symbolic possession thereof by affixing the notice on the said seven properties, on 22.11.2013. The petitioner-Bank then published the possession notice in the local newspapers. The petitioner-Bank approached the District Magistrate at Nagpur for seeking assistance u/s 14 of the Securitisation Act to take the physical possession of the secured assets i.e. five mortgaged properties at Nagpur with relevant information through an application and all the relevant documents in support thereof, on 26.11.2014. On 5.1.2015 the respondent no.1/ Additional District Magistrate issued notice to the respondent nos. 2 to 9 to file thei