S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. Challenging the recovery proceedings, dated 20.2.2014 initiated by the second respondent by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ARFAESI Act'), the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are stated hereunder.

2a. The petitioners have availed a term loan on 20.01.2009 from the first respondent bank and for collateral purpose, the petitioners gave the property situated at No.10 Casurina Drive, Neelankarai, Chennai. Since the petitioners had not paid the outstanding amount, i.e. Rs.26,00,49,218.11 despite offering one-time settlement, the respondent bank initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act. The notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 18.2.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner made some part payments and requested the bank to restructure the loan. According to the petitioners, the loan was not restructured by the Bank. Again, the respondent bank issued 13(2) notices to the petitioners. Finally, on 20.02.2014, the first respondent issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, for taking possession of the property. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. Questioning the impugned proceedings issued under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the property owned by the petitioner and given as collateral security to the respondents, is agricultural land and therefore, Section 31(1) of the Act excludes the provisions of SARFAESI Act with respect to agricultural land. He would contend that since the secured assets are agricultural lands, no recovery could be made from the said lands and hence, the respondents bank has no authority to initiate proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and there is no justification on the part of the bank in issuing notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and it is open to the bank to recover the amount due in any other manner known to law. In order to prove that the secured assets are agricultural lands, the learned counsel relied upon the Income Tax returns, wherein, the tax was paid towards income derived from agricultural lands, i.e. secured asset and also the Certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, certifying that the secured assets are the agricultural lands. He also referred to the adangal extracts in respect of the secured lands, which shows that there is cultivation in the said lands. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions, viz.,

i) 2010(5) CTC 337 (Signal Apparels Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank an1d others)

ii) 1998-1-L.W.101 (G. Selvamani and four others versus The District Revenue Officer-cum Revisional Authority and others)

iii) (2012) 5 CTC 257 (Eshwar Purushothaman Gardens versus Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Zonal Office)

iv) (1976) 3 SCC 864 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh versus Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards) Paigah)

v) 1998-I-L.W.87 (Kalpana Poongothai (Minor), rep. by mother and guardian, Mrs. Amsaveni versus L. Kalianan)

vi) AIR (37) 1950 Madras 566 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras versus K.E. Sundara Mudaliar and others)

vii) (2010) 14 SCC 553 (Union of India and others versus Mangal Textile Mills India Pvt. Ltd. and others) and

viii) AIR 2011 Karnataka 110 ( M/s. Canara Tile Work and others versus M/s. Canara Bank and another)

4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents Bank has not followed the RBI guidelines in declaring the account of the petitioners as Non-performing Asset as despite the payment of amounts during the month of February, 2011, the respondents bank had chosen to classify the account as a stressed asset as on 31.01.2011. In this regard, the le