Decided on September 17,2019

Vallepu Subbaraja Appellant
INDIAN BANK Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



M. Seetharama Murti, J. - (1.)This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking verbatim the following relief/s:
"...the notices, dated 09.11.2017, 07-02-2018 and auction notice, dated 05-03-2019 issued under Section 13(2), 13(4) and Rules 6(2), 8(6) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, issued by the respondent no.1 to sell the agricultural property in an extents of Ac.0.22 Cents in Sy.No.149/9, Ac.1.15 cents in Sy.No.150/1, Ac.0.33 cents in Sy.No.150/9, Ac.0.25 cents in, Ac.0.35 cents in 273/8, Ac.1.14 cents in, Ac.0.25 cents in, Ac.0.29 cents in, Ac.1.70 cents in, Ac.0.46 cetns in, Ac.0.24 cents in, Ac.0.72 cents in and Ac.10.84 cents in of 102E Ramireddigaripalle Revenue Village, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District, for realization of the agricultural loan secured by the petitioner through public auction and the consequential Sale Deed, dated 01.06.2019 executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent no.4 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Section 31(i) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

(2.)We have heard the submissions of Ms. Parineeta, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners, of Sri G.L.V. Ramana Murthy, learned standing counsel for Indian Bank appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, and of Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. We have perused the material record.
(3.)The case of the petitioners, as stated in the affidavit of the 1st petitioner, in brief, is this: - 'The first petitioner inherited the lands aforementioned from his forefathers and was & is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. His possession and enjoyment was recognized; and, the lands were mutated in his name. He was issued pattadar pass book and title deed book in respect of the subject lands in his favour. While so, in the year 2009, the 1st petitioner was constrained to obtain agricultural loan from the 2nd respondent bank by mortgaging the subject land, for the purchase of a tractor to grow mango plantation in the subject land. The 2nd petitioner stood as a guarantor. For non payment of the loan amount, the respondents bank classified the asset as a non performing asset (NPA) and initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ['SARFAESI Act, for short] and issued the notices, dated 09.11.2017 and 07.02.2018, respectively under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued auction notice, dated 05.03.2019. Later, a sale was held and was confirmed in favour of the 4th respondent. The petitioners having been aggrieved of the said action of the 1st respondent bank filed of 2019 against the bank on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, with a delay of six days. The Tribunal ordered notice in the said application. The same is pending adjudication. The 1st respondent bank having received notice in the said proceeding, executed a registered sale deed, dated 01.06.2019, in favour of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent made an application under Form-VI to the 3rd respondent -Tahasildar concerned for mutation of the property in his name in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour. The loan is an agricultural loan. The subject land, which was mortgaged, is an agricultural land. The provisions of SARFAESI Act have no application to such land. Since the 1st respondent bank initiated proceedings under the said Act, the proceedings including the sale are vitiated. The sale deed executed by the bank in favour of the 4th respondent in respect of the said agricultural land is void. Hence, the writ petition is filed.'

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.