The application of the SARFAESI Act to agricultural properties is contingent upon statutory interpretation by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2025)

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Set aside Ext. P7 order dated 19.09.2025 in IA 2340/2025 and Ext. P5 order dated 29.07.2025 in IA 2790/2025 in SA 261/2025 of Debt Recovery Tribunal-I Emakulam in so far as it allows the respondent bank to take physical possession of the agricultural land given as security interest and allow Ext. P4 stay petition as prayed for pending consideration of the Securitisation Application by the Tribunal.

ii. Direct the Tribunal to dispose Ext. P8 IA 4070/2025 in IA

2790/2025 in SA 261/2025 of Debt Recovery Tribunal-I Emakulam on merits and direct to keep in abeyance all proceedings to take physical possession of the Security Interest pending consideration of the same by the Tribunal.”

2. The main ground on which S.A No.261/2025 is filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) is that the property sought to be proceeded is an agricultural property; therefore, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act , 2002, cannot be invoked for recovery of the same. A stay petition was moved in the S.A and Ext.P5 order dated 29.07.2025 was passed directing the defendants to defer taking of physical possession of the secured asset till 19.08.2025 on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of RS.20 lakhs with the 1^st respondent Bank on or before 18.08.2025. Aggrieved by this, an I.A was filed before the DRT for reviewing the order in Ext.P5. This was considered and Ext.P7 order was passed rejecting the same on the finding that there was no error apparent in the order. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an I.A (Ext.P8) for modification of the original order dated 29.07.2025, regarding the imposition of the conditional deposit of Rs.20 lakhs. The said I.A was filed on 03.10.2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said I.A is posted to 12.02.2026 and in the meantime, the Bank is taking steps to take physical possession of the secured assets.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on instructions, submits that the loan was given to the petitioners for conducting agriculture in the leased property and the property which is sought to be taken is a different property. The said submission is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The question whether the property is an agricultural property or not is to be considered by the DRT under the SARFAESI Act , 2002, itself.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that a counter affidavit will be filed within a week.

6. Taking note of the fact that a conditional order was passed directing the petitioners to remit Rs.20 lakhs and since Ext.P8 is pending before the DRT, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) within a period of three weeks from today and if such deposit is made, the petitioners are free to request the DRT to advance the hearing of Ext.P8. In the meantime, all coercive steps against the petitioners shall be deferred for a period of four weeks. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the contentions raised in Ext.P8 and it is left open to be decided by the DRT.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.