The court determined that the Tribunal must assess agricultural property claims under the SARFAESI Act to ensure proper procedural compliance.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam to consider and pass orders on I.A. No.468/2022 in S.A. No.151/2022 within a time to be fixed by this court.

2. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) by filing the aforesaid securitization application under Section 17 of the said Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that the property in question cannot be a subject matter of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act as the property is clearly agricultural land. It is submitted that I.A. No.468/2022 was filed in the aforesaid securitization application seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to determine the nature of the land. It is submitted that though the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was filed along with an application for stay of the sale (which was notified on 29-06-2022), the Tribunal did not consider and pass orders on the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and instead issued a conditional order for stay of the proceedings for sale. It is submitted that no sale took place on 29-06-2022 and no fresh date of sale was notified. It is submitted that in such circumstances, it is only appropriate that a direction be issued to the Tribunal to consider and pass orders on I.A.

No.468/2022 within a time limit to be fixed by this court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would submit that the conditional order of stay was issued on 29-06-2022. It is submitted that the petitioner has waited for more than a month and has now moved this original petition seeking the aforesaid directions from this court. It is submitted that the sale did not take place on 29-06-2022 and it was always open to the petitioner to seek that orders to be passed in I.A. No.468/2022 and this original petition is really not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also submitted that despite the Tribunal imposing conditions in the stay order granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has not complied with the said conditions.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the sale proposed to be held on 29-06-2022 did not fructify, I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent bank if a direction is issued to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order in I.A. No.468/2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to carryout the inspection of the property. Let the needful be done within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment.

O.P (DRT) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG

APPENDIX OF OP (DRT) 322/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P 1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2)

OF THE ACT OF THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK DATED 07.06.2021.

Exhibit P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 24.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF S.A. 151/2022 WITHOUT ANNEXURES Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 27-05-2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P 5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.468/2022 IN S.A.NO.151/2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER APPLICANTS.