IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36869 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.ABRURAHIMAN, S/O.AYAMMADKUTTY HAJI, PROP.ALFI CHAPPALS, ANAPPARA HOUSE, (PO) UNNIKULAM, KOILANDY,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE,KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BALUSSERY BRANCH , KOZHIKODE,REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-673 612. ADV.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36869 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner is challenging proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Immovable property which is the secured asset, has already been taken over possession by the respondent bank and it is proclaimed for sale, as per Ext.P10 notice. The main ground on which the proceedings is impugned in this writ petition is that, the immovable property in question is an agricultural land, which is exempted from the purview of Act by virtue of Section 31(i). 2. It is noticed that on an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this court claiming benefit under the 'One Time Settlement' scheme, formulated by the Central Government, which is alleged as applicable to the respondent bank in view of the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In Ext.P6 judgment this court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within one month and to clear the balance amount by way of 4 equal monthly instalments, starting from 15.4.2010 onwards. Evidently the petitioner has not complied with the condition stipulated. On the other hand, Ext.P6 judgment was challenged in a Writ Appeal and further before the Hon'ble W.P.(C).36869/10- -2- Supreme Court, which attempts were unsuccessful as evidenced from Ext.P7 & P8. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that, contentions now raised to the effect that the property in question is an agricultural land, was not raised by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. Further it is disputed by the respondents that the land in question is an agricultural land which is exempted under the purview of Section 31(i). 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions raised, I am of the view that, the dispute as to whether the property in question is an agricultural land, can be resolved only on evaluation of evidence regarding factual aspects, both documentary and oral. Since the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act provides effective alternative remedy as provided under Section 17(1), I am of the view that the appropriate forum to decide such disputed factual aspects is the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Under such circumstances I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Under such circumstances the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to invoke remedies provided under Section 17(1) of the Act, if permissible under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb