1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P. (MD) No.6016 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 G. Mariappan Petitioner vs. Authorised Officer Indian Bank Zonal Office Tirunelveli Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 18.04.2011 issued by the respondent under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and quash the same. For petitioner Mr. Anand Chandrasekhar for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates For respondent Mr. R. Pandivel - - - - ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the possession notice dated 18.04.2011 issued by the respondent under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act"). 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the property with reference to which the impugned notice has been issued is an agricultural land, consequently, in view of the provisions of the Act, the impugned notice has to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondent bank, the certificate based on which the petitioner claims that the land in question is an agricultural land, is issued only by the Village Administrative Officer, whereas, the competent authority to issue the said certificate is only the Tahsildar. It is his further stand that the land in question is not an agricultural land. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Under such circumstances, when there is a dispute of fact, i.e. whether the land in question is an agricultural land or not, we are of the view that this can be decided only by letting in evidence. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to approach only the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, unless time is given so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, even the steps to be taken by him to go before the Tribunal will become waste since sale has been fixed tomorrow. 6. Taking into consideration all these aspects, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate statutory forum prescribed under the concerned statute, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and for a period of two weeks, the respondent bank is restrained from taking any further steps based on the notice dated 18.04.2011 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. According to the learned counsel for the respondent bank, the respondent bank should be permitted to conduct sale, however, the bank shall not confirm the sale. 8. But, since it is the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question is an agricultural land and since there is a bar under the said Act to bring the said agricultural land for sale and also when there is disputed fact with regard to the classification of the land in question, we are of the considered opinion that this request of the learned counsel for the respondent bank cannot be considered at this stage and the respondent bank is at liberty to raise this plea before the appropriate forum in the event of the petitioner approaching the said forum. With above direction and observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.SIde) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Zonal Office Tirunelveli +One cc to Mr.R.Pandivel, Advocate, Sr.No.20451 +One Cc to Mr.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate, SR.No.20462 cad rl/4c – 28.6.2011 WP(MD) No.6016 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/