IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 4954 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. LEKHA G.KURUP, AJAYA VILASAM, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -691 552. 2. AJAYAKUMAR.H., AJAYA VILASAM, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 691 552. BY ADV. SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 691 551. 2. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., ADOOR BRANCH, PIN- 691 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 3. ADV.DYANA.R., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, SANSAM COMPLEX, HOSPITAL ROAD, OPP.ALUKKAS, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 691 551. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4954/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NO.3818/2000 OF ADOOR SUB REGISTRY DTD. 05/12/2000. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEMAND NOTICE NO.9068 DTD. 22/02/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.2. BANK. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REGISTERED NOTICE DTD. 31/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4954 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are husband and wife. Consequent to default committed by the petitioners in repaying a loan availed from the respondents 1 and 2, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated. The immovable property, which is a secured asset, was sought to taken over possession, by resorting to Section 14(1) of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take over possession of the property and Ext.P3 notice was issued by the Advocate Commissioner requiring the petitioners to hand over possession of the property. 2. According to the petitioners, the immovable property in question is an agricultural land exempted from the purview of SARFAESI Act by virtue of Section 31. It is also contended that the coercive steps are now being pursued without acceding to their request to permit to wipe off the liability in a phased manner, within a reasonable time. 3. Heard ; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 2 W.P.(C).No.4954 of 2011 and 2. It is submitted that the loan in question was availed in the year 2001. Since the repayment was irregular, the loan account is classified as 'NPA' in the year 2002. It is submitted that even the original period of repayment had already expired, as early as in the year 2008. Under the above mentioned circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are not amenable to the request of the petitioners to permit any extended period for repayment. The contention regarding the claim of exemption on the basis of agricultural land, is also stoutly denied by respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the land in question is not an agricultural land. It is also contended that the petitioners have not raised any such objection at the time when the demand was issued under Section 13(2). 4. Considering the effective statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, it may not be justifiable on the part of this Court to interfere with the proceedings or to adjudicate upon the disputed question as to whether the land is exempted under Section 31. However, learned counsel for the petitioners made an appeal to this Court to permit payment of the entire balance in a phased manner, within a reasonable time, subject to their rights reserved to approach the respondents 1 and 2 for settlement 3 W.P.(C).No.4954 of 2011 seeking benefits under the 'one time settlement scheme' if any available. 5. It is noticed that pursuant to the interim orders issued by this Court, the petitioners had remitted a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The limited prayer now raised is based on an undertaking that the petitioners are not intending to invoke any statutory remedy and that they are relinquishing all challenges against the impugned proceedings. 6. Eventhough interference on merits is not called for, in view of the relinquishments made I am of the view that the petitioners can be permitted to wipe off the entire liability by payment of the amounts in instalments, within a reasonable time. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further coercive steps for dispossession and sale of the property, subject to condition of the petitioners remitting the entire balance outstanding along with interest and expenses if any due, in 6 (six) equal monthly instalmetns falling due on or before 15.8.2011 and on or before the 15th day of the succeeding months. 8. It is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the respondents 1 and 2 seeking OTS and the directions 4 W.P.(C).No.4954 of 2011 contained herein above will not stand in the way of the respondents considering such request and taking appropriate decisions. 9. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the instalments as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps, on the basis of the notices already issued and on such event the petitioners will be precluded from raising any subsequent challenge. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/