IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15419 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMT.SATHI DEVI, W/O.P.K.KANNAN, FLAT NO.10, OMEGA ROYAL PART (NEAR WESTEND SUPER MARKET) POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 002. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL ADV. SMT.MANJU RAJAN ADV. SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), REGION VI (AUTHORISED OFFICER), REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, GEETHANJALI BUILDING, PARAMEKAVU, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. P.K.KANNAN, PROPRIETOR, VIJAYA CONSTRUCTIONS, FLAT NO. 1D, OMEGA ROYAL PART (NEAR WESTEND SUPER MARKET) POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 002. R1 BY ADV. MR. SATHISH NINAN, SC. ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 15419 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the coercive steps taken by the respondent-Bank invoking the provisions under the SURFAESI Act, when the petitioner, who was one of the guarantors to the loan transaction, turned to be a chronic defaulter. 2. The contentions of the petitioner are of three folds. The first contention is that the property is an 'agricultural land' and as such, it cannot be proceeded against in view of the exclusion provided under Section 31(i) of the SURFAESI Act. The second contention is that the publication of the proceedings are not in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, in so far as it has been effected only in two Malayalam dailies and not in an English daily, which, according to the petitioner, is a mandatory requirement. The third contention is that he has W.P.(C) No. 15419 OF 2009 2 already submitted Exts. P5, P7 and P9 letters and without giving any reply, the Bank is proceeding with coercive steps, which also, according to the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable. 3. The respondent Bank has filed a statement rebutting the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner with regard to each and every contention, as aforesaid. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that Exts.P5, P7 and P9 letters/applications, which are stated as submitted by the petitioner, have not been received by the Bank and that the said documents are reasonably presumed as fabricated by the petitioner. Obviously, no material has been produced by the petitioner to prove his case in this regard and as such, the contention put forth by the petitioner cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. 4. With regard to the case of the petitioner that the publication was not proper, the learned counsel for the Bank submits, with reference to Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, that the Law only contemplates publication in two leading News Papers, one of which shall be in vernacular W.P.(C) No. 15419 OF 2009 3 language. In other words, the rule does not contemplate that one of the two dailies shall be in English language. This being the position, there is absolutely no contravention of any rule as well. 5. With regard to the third contention of the petitioner, placing reliance on Section 31(i) of the Act, that the property involved is an 'agricultural land', it is to be noted that even on a cursory look on Ext.P3 photographs produced by the petitioner himself, it can be easily gathered that the property is a 'dry land' where quite a number of trees including coconut palms are there; though here and there, some other plants including plantains and few pepper vines are seen. Even otherwise, the term 'agricultural land', though not defined under the statute, can be understood in its normal sense and course, as a common man understands the same. Further, as evident from Ext.P2- copy of the Village Land Tax Register, produced by the petitioner, the property has been described as 'purayidom' (dry land) and not as 'Nilam' or 'krishibhoomi' (agricultural land). In the above facts and circumstances, the contentions W.P.(C) No. 15419 OF 2009 4 raised by the petitioner do not hold any water at all. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk