IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36643 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MR. JAMES ANTONY AGED 50, S/O. ANTONY, PLATHINKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM. 2. SMT. ALICE JAMES, AGED 48, W/O. JAMES ANTONY, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FEDERAL BANK LTD., NEDUMKANDOM BRANCH NEDUMKANDOM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LITD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE FOR R1,2 SMT.P.V.PARVATHI FOR R1,2 SMT.REENA THOMAS FOR R1,2 SRI.L.RAM MOHAN FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 36643 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the steps taken by the respondent Bank in the course of realisation of the amounts stated as due under a loan transaction. The basic contention raised from the part of the petitioners is that the property is an 'agricultural land' which is liable to be exempted by virtue of the section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act and hence that the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have approached the respondent Bank on many an occasion seeking to have the course of 'private sale', which however was not entertained by the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition are absolutely devoid of any merit and that the property concerned is not an agricultural land, but a 'dry land' which does not come within the purview of Section 31 (i). It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has never approached the Bank with any suggestion to have 'private sale' and no perspective purchaser was ever brought to the respondent Bank for facilitating such 'private sale'. It is also submitted by WP(C) No.36643/2009 2 the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that the plea of 'private sale' has not been projected any where in the Writ Petition, but for the submission made across the bar. 3. With regard to the first contention, the question whether the property concerned is an 'agricultural land' or not so as to exempt under Section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act is a matter which requires evidence, particularly in view of the rival contentions raised. The materials produced before this Court do not reveal or persuade this Court to arrive at an inference to hold that the property involved is an 'agricultural land' so as to provide exemption as sought for. That apart, Ext.P4 copy of the 'Patta' produced by the petitioners themselves shows, against the entry in column No.3 as to the nature of land, that it is a 'dry land'. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, absolutely no interference is possible and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to establish their rights and liberties by availing the alternate remedy as provided under the statute. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc