COMMON ORDER

1. The Appeals in M.A (SA) :77/2025 and M.A (SA):78/2025 have been filed against the orders passed in I.A. No. 1897/2024 and I.A. No. 1898/2024 in S.A. No. 385/2024 respectively, by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam.

2. S.A. No. 385/2024 has been filed by the Appellant seeking the following reliefs:

a). Call for all the records leading up to Annexure-A15 Memo dated 16/05/2024 from the Defendants 1 to 3 and Declare that Annexure-A1 Demand Notice, Annexure-A2 Possession Notice, Annexure-A7 Sale Notice, Annexure-A8 Demand Notice, Annexure-A10 Possession Notice, Annexure-A11 Sale Notice, Annexure-A12 Sale Notice, Annexure-A14 Sale Notice, and sale held on 09/05/2024 and confirmed in favour of 4th Defendant are in violations of SARFAESI Act and Rules;

(b). Order setting aside Annexure-A8 Demand Notice, Annexure-A10 Possession Notice, Annexure-A14 Sale Notice, and sale held on 09/05/2024 and confirmed in favour of 4th Defendant;

(c). Direct the Defendant to restore the possession of the property described in Annexure-A8 Demand Notice to the Applicant;

(d). To pass order directing the Defendant to pay costs of the proceedings and compensation to the Applicant;

(e). Issue such other Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. During the pendency of the Securitisation Application, the Appellant filed IA 1897/2024 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the secured asset and submit a report with regard to its nature and cultivation, and IA 1898/2024 was filed seeking stay of all measures under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Learned Presiding Officer, after considering the submissions of the parties, dismissed both the Applications. Challenging the same, these Appeals have been filed.

4. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for Appellant that one of the main grounds raised in the Securitisation Application is that the property in question to be proceeded under SARFAESI Act, 2002, is a garden land and fully cultivated with various crops of rubber trees and coconut trees, and therefore, there is bar under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to proceed against the said property. He further submitted that a Certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Krishibhavan, Paingottoor, No. KB PGR/18/2022-23 dated 15.09.2022 and other documents produced, would clearly establish that there are standing rubber trees and coconut trees in the property. Even in these Appeals, the Appellant has produced the documents like classification of land and farmers in the State of Kerala, reply given by the Village Officer, Land Revenue Officer to the RTI filed by the Appellant, Ration Card of the Appellant and report given by the Advocate Commissioner in OS No. 224/2025, to show that the land is of an agricultural land. So saying, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for Appellant that, the Tribunal has not considered the issue with proper perspective and dismissed the Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and for grant of stay of all further proceedings. Hence, these Appeals.

5. In reply to these submissions, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that the property in question is not an agricultural land but residential land, as seen from the valuation report produced in this case. In the Securitisation Application, the Appellant claimed that agricultural operations are being carried out on his own land and also on the leased property. It is further submitted that the Appellant is only a guarantor in respect of the loan availed by M/s. Ruby Baby for the purpose of pineapple cultivation. However, neither before the Tribunal nor before this Appellate Forum, Appellant produced any material to show that the agricultural operations were going on at the time of creation of the mortgage and continued till date.

6. In the case before hand, the sale was held under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and a Sale Certificate has been issued. There