IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.55961 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI M. KUPPUSWAMY S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDING AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.21 NEW NO.21/5 SITUATED AT THAGACHAGUPPE VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MANU N.P., ADV. FOR SRI K.S.NAGARAJA RAO ADV.) AND:
1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER INDIAN BANK SHESHADRIPURAM BRANCH SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020.
2. THE BANK MANAGER INDIAN BANK SHESHADRIPURAM BRANCH SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-560 020. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI U.S.YOGESH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 24.08.2013 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT AT ANNEXURE-H AND THE POSESSION NOTICE DATED 04.12.2013 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE SAID ACT BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-P IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO.21, NEW SY.NO.21/5, MEASURING 2 ACRES 26 GUNATS SITUATED AT RAMAIAH PALYA, TAGACHIGUPPE, KUMBALGOD POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Manu N.P., learned counsel for Sri K.S. Nagaraja Rao, learned counsel for petitioner.
Sri U.S. Yogesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the demand notice dated 24.08.2013 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and possession notice dated 04.12.2013 issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the secured asset is an agricultural land and therefore, the respondents cannot take any action against the agricultural land, in view of the bar contained in Section 31(i) of the Act.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while inviting the attention of this Court to the demand notice dated 24.08.2013 issued under Section 13(2) of the Act pointed out that the land in question is a farm house and is not an agricultural land.
6. Be that as it may, the question whether or not the land in question is an agricultural land or is a farm house which is being used for residential purpose is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in a proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and for the reasons assigned in the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in W.P.No.6594/2018 by a Bench of this Court reserving liberty to file an application under Section 17 of the Act. Needless to state that, in case the petitioner approaches the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’ for short) by filing an application under Section 17 of the Act within a period of six weeks from today, the DRT by invoking the principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall decide the application which may be preferred by the petitioner on merits. Needless to state, in case the petitioner complies with the terms and conditions of the interim order granted by a Bench of this Court, the interim order shall continue till the petitioner approaches the DRT by filing an appropriate application.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST