Ladaku Narayan Patil vs Punjab And Maharashtra Co-Op. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3510 Bom

k
                                   1/3
                                                           7 wpst 94491.20 as.doc


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.94491 OF 2020
                                  ...
Ladaku Narayan Patil                         ...Petitioner
      v/s.
Punjab and Maharashtra Co-op.
Bank Ltd. & Ors.                             ...Respondents
                                  ....
                                 WITH
              WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.94493 OF 2020
                                  ...
Vasant Sitaram Patil & Ors.                  ...Petitioners
      v/s.
Punjab and Maharashtra Co-op.
Bank Ltd. & Ors.                             ...Respondents
                                  ....
                                 WITH
              WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.94495 OF 2020
                                  ...
Janardhan Govardhan Patil                    ...Petitioner
      v/s.
Punjab and Maharashtra Co-op.
Bank Ltd. & Ors.                             ...Respondents
                                  ....
Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mr. Dhananjayrao D. Rananaware for Petitioners.
Mr. Nainesh N. Amin i/b M/s. N.N. Amin & Co-Advocates for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
                                   ..
                        CORAM : A.A. SAYED &
                                    MADHAV JAMDAR, JJ.

                        DATED :     24 FEBRUARY 2021
P.C.:


1        The Petitioners claim to be the owners of the subject lands which

according to the Respondent-Bank are a small part of the larger lands

which are mortgaged to it. The Respondent Bank has taken measures

K 1/3 k

7 wpst 94491.20 as.doc

under the SARFAESI Act. When we pointed out to the learned Counsel for

the Petitioners that the Petitioners would be required to approach the DRT,

the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in view of section

31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, the DRT would not have jurisdiction.

2 It is disputed by learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank that

the subject lands are agricultural lands. Learned Counsel for the

Respondent Bank has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the

Madras High Court in Kalpesh P.C. Surana vs. India Bank, Teynampet

Branch, 2010 (3) CTC 287, wherein, it is held that whether a land is

agricultural or not, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be

adjudicated in a Writ Petition. We respectfully agree. We are told by learned

Counsel for the Respondent-Bank that the borrower has filed a

Securitisation Application before the DRT in respect of the larger land of

which the subject lands are a part. The subject lands are thus also subject

matter of the Securitisation Application before the DRT. In these

circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition.

3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on paras

22 and 23 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Chess

Association vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 932, wherein it is

held that in-spite there being an alternate remedy, there is no legal bar in

exercising the writ jurisdiction by the High Court. It is thus cannot be

K 2/3 k

7 wpst 94491.20 as.doc

disputed that it is the discretion of the Court whether to exercise its

discretionary writ jurisdiction. In the present case, we are not disposed to

exercise our writ jurisdiction particularly when there are disputed question of

facts involved viz. whether the land is an agricultural land or not.

4 In light of the above, we dismiss the Petition with liberty to the

Petitioners to approach the DRT.

                   (MADHAV JAMDAR, J.)                                  (A.A. SAYED, J.)


            Digitally signed
            by Sudarshan R.
Sudarshan   Katkam
R. Katkam   Date: 2021.02.26
            12:06:05 +0530




        K                                            3/3