SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 823

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
J. Malliga & Others
Versus
The Authorised Officer & Another
W.P.(MD).Nos.12280, 12733, 12734 & 12550 to 12553 of 2009
Decided On : 25-02-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:B. Saravanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Govindasamy, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term “agricultural lands” in the SARFAESI Act and the application of principles related to agricultural activities and income.

Headnote:

agricultural lands - Construction of the words “agricultural lands” in Section 31(f) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 - Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Wet Land (Act 28 of 2008) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land - C.E.D. Kerala v. K. Venugopala AIR 1977 SC 121 - W.T. Commr., A.P. v. Court of Wards, Paigah AIR 1977 SC 113: (1976) 3 SCC 864 - L.T. Commr. V. Benox Kumar AIR 1957 SC 768 - D. Ravichandran v. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank (2006) 132 Company Cases 803 (Mad) - Model Financial Corporation v. Indian Bank, W.P. No.3705 of 2007

Fact of the Case:

The legal question in the writ petitions is the construction of the words “agricultural lands” in Section 31(f) of the SARFAESI Act. The lands given as collateral security to the respondents are cardamom plantations, and the impugned notice issued refers to the word “cardamom plantation.” The petitioners argue that the lands are agricultural and immune from attachment.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the activities related to cardamom cultivation and referred to relevant judgments to establish that the lands in question qualify as agricultural lands. The court found that the impugned notice was without jurisdiction and the respondent-Bank cannot proceed against the properties of the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act.

Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the term “agricultural lands” in the SARFAESI Act and whether the lands in question, being cardamom plantations, qualified as agricultural lands.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of agricultural lands in various acts, as well as judgments related to agricultural income and operations. It emphasized that the cultivation of cardamom requires normal agricultural activities and that if there are two views possible, one favorable to the assessee should be given.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notice was held to be without jurisdiction. The respondent-Bank was barred from proceeding against the properties of the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act.

Judgment :

Ms. Prabha Sridevan, J.

The only question that arises in these writ petitions is a legal question as to the construction of the words “agricultural lands” found in Section 31(f) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002.

2. According to the petitioners, the lands, which were given as collateral security to the respondents, are cardamom plantations and the impugned notice issued by the first respondent clearly refers to the word “cardamom plantation”, and therefore, without any further investigation, it would be logical to conclude that they are agricultural lands, and hence, they are immune from attachment.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, referred to the definition of the word TAMIL in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act and the definition of the words “paddy land” in Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and also the Wet Land (Act 28 of 2008) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and also the definition of land in Section 2(nnn) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act and referred to C.E.D. Kerala v. K. Venugopala AIR 1977 SC 121, wherein the Supreme Court held that the view of the Kerala High Court that “all forest lands in this State are agricultural lands in the sense that they can be prudently and profitably exploited for agricultural purposes” is too wide. Therefore, according to the respondents, without evidence to show that such land had been cleared and prepared or earmarked for agricultural purposes, it must be treated as prima facie non-agricultural land. The learned counsel for the respondents has also filed written submissions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, produced a study report made by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation to describe the activities that are done for cardamom cultivation to show that the lands, where the cardamom is cultivated, would be agricultural lands. He also relied on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in W.T. Commr., A.P. v. Court of Wards, Paigah AIR 1977 SC 113: (1976) 3 SCC 864, and also in L.T. Commr. V. Benox Kumar AIR 1957 SC 768.

5. We find from the literature relating to the cardamom cultivation that there are planting periods and there are harvesting periods depending on the time when they are planted. The cardamom cultivation does not comprise merely of raising the products of the land in the narrower sense of the term like tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting and irrigation and similar work done on the land, but also includes the subsequent operations set out. The above operations, which are basic as well as the subsequent activities, form one integrated activity of the agriculturist. The above activities would indicate that they are similar to what is normally described as agricultural activities, L.T.Commr. v. Benox Kumar (supra), which arose out of the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court held that the terms “agriculture” and “agricultural lands” used in the definition of agricultural income in Section (2)(1) not having been defined in the Income Tax Act, the Court must necessarily fall back upon the general sense in which they have been understood in common parlance. The Supreme Court further observed that agriculture in its root sense means “ager a filed” and “cultura-cultivation”, cultivation of filed which of course implies expenditure of human skill and labour upon land. The Supreme Court referred to various decisions including the English decisions and some of the observations are relevant for this case:

“The expression “agricultural Land” means any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, cottage gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards, or allotments, but does not include land occupied together with a house as a park, gardens other than as aforesaid pleasure grounds or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport o















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top