Disputes involving contractual obligations and factual inquiries are not suitable for writ jurisdiction.

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. By invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed that (i) to reimburse the money paid by the petitioner (ii) to direct respondent Bank to remove encumbrance-Boja from the agricultural land in question (iii) to direct the respondent to pay all the expenses and (iv) to declare that the officials of the respondent Bank have committed a fraud.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is tribal and illiterate person, that his father took agricultural loan for purchase of tractor from the respondent-State Bank of India, Fort Songadh Branch in the year 2006. According to the petitioner, he paid money in the loan account in respect of which payments, copies of receipts are produced on record. The father of the petitioner died on 18.05.2013. According to the petitioner, after the death of the father, respondent Bank snatched away the tractor from his house without any notice or information on the ground of non-payment of dues of the Bank.

3. It is stated that the Bank did not give any statement for long time regarding the dues. When the statement of loan account was given, the total money paid was shown to be Rs. 4,76,471/-. The loan was taken for Rs. 3,47,000/-. The case of the petitioner is that when the loan was taken for Rs. 3,47,000/- and the total amount paid was shown to be Rs. 4,76,471/-, there was an excess payment for Rs. 1,29,471/-. It is the further case of the petitioner that he being a tribal, was entitled to subsidy and the benefit of scheme of the government for waiver of the agricultural loan. According to the petitioner, despite these facts, the respondent Bank has shown Rs. 7 Lacs to be due and shown an encumbrance on the petitioner's land mortgaged with the Bank.

3.1 The petition came to be contested by the respondent Bank by filing an affidavit-in-reply through one Mahedrakumar Dineshchandra Shah, holding the post of Chief Manager. Therein, it is inter alia contended that the borrower late Shri Nathiyabhai Jethiyabhai Vasava and his son Sumanbhai Nathiyabhai Vasava-the petitioner herein jointly approached the Bank for agricultural finance requesting for two kinds of loan, one for tractor and the other under the Kishan Credit Card Scheme. The loan agreements for tractor and in respect of Kishan Credit Card Scheme came to be executed on 18.03.2006. The tractor loan was for Rs. 4,47,000/- which amount was directly paid to the supplier by demand draft for purchase of New Swaraj Tractor. The Kishan Credit Card Loan was additional loan for Rs. 30,000/- which came to be sanctioned on the same day.

3.2 It is further stated by the Bank that for the said loan, charge over the agricultural land bearing Block No. 51 admeasuring Hectare 3-20-62 situated at Village Limbi, Taluka Songadh, Tapi was created on 13.06.2006. The limit of finance which could be availed against such charge was upto Rs. 7 Lacs. The document of charge was executed and was produced on record along with the affidavit-in-reply. As far as loan for Rs. 30,000/- is concerned, the said limit was enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- and the same came to be sanctioned and disbursed on 12.09.2011. The copy of the document in this regard is produced by the Bank along with the affidavit-in-reply.

4. It appears from the facts stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the tractor bearing RTO Registration No. GJ-19-B-2767 in the name of Mr. Nathiyabhai Jethiyabhai Vasava was seized by an agency namely M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Seizing and Recovery Agency, Baroda from Village Pipal at 11.37 A.M. on 01.10.2013 in presence of Rakeshbhai Sumanbhai Vasava, Rajesh Sumanbhai Vasava. These persons signed panchanama and one of them happened to be the sons of the petitioner. The Bank thereafter issued notice dated 08.04.2013 seeking to recover its dues. The said notice was served and acknowledged by the