IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19857 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 73 YEARS, PALAVILA VEEDU, ATTUVASSERY, KULAKKADA, KOLLAM. 2. RAJAMMA, W/O.RAGHAVAN, -DO-. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, NEDIYAVILA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGION V. ARPAN TOWERS, PRATHIBHA JUNCTION, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM-691008. 2. V.SOMAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KURUMPELAZHIKATHU (THRIVENI), KUNNATHOOR, KUNNATHOOR EAST P.O., KOLLAM-690540. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19857 of 2011(F) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF OS NO.22/06 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P3. NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4. REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P5. NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19857 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the 1st respondent for recovery of loan amounts due from the 2nd respondent, repayment of which was guaranteed by the petitioners. The petitioners' contention is that the secured asset is an agricultural land and therefore is exempt from proceedings under the Act. The learned counsel for the bank submits that the bank has already taken possession of the borrowers' property and the petitioners' property has not yet been taken possession of. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The question as to whether the property is agricultural land or not is a question of fact, which has to be proved by the petitioners by adducing evidence. The Supreme Court has time and again cautioned the High Courts against entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging proceedings under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security W.P(C) No. 19857 of 2011 -: 2 :- Interest Act, 2002. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek remedies in an appeal as provided under law. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/