Madras High Court
K.Murugesan vs The Presiding Officer on 21 July, 2023
WP No.21613 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WP No.21613 of 2023
K.Murugesan : Petitioner
versus
1.The Presiding Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Coimbatore
2.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer/
Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Tiruppur District.
4.The Tashidar,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
5.M/s.State Bank of India,
rep. By its Authorised Officer,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
No.377/1, Dr.Nanjappa Road,
behind N.S.Palaniappa Nursing Home,
Coimbatore
6.M.Loganathan : Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21613 of 2023
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
of the 1st respondent order in SA No.636 of 2021 dated 30.06.2023
and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to
take into consideration that the land in question is an agricultural
land under Section 31(i) of SARFAESI Act, which exempts from the
SARFAESI proceedings and speedy dispose of the applications in SA
No.199 of 2014, SA No.636 of 2021 and SA No.175 of 2022 on the file
of 1st respondent within a time frame.
For the Petitioner : Ms.A.Pramila
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Ms.A.Pramila, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is challenging the interim order passed by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, wherein the petitioner is
directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
and Fifty Lakhs only).
3. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 17 of
the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (for short, the Act of
2002) purportedly challenging the order passed under Section 14 the
Act of 2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21613 of 2023
4. The petitioner had initially challenged the sale certificate, by
approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. The Debts
Recovery Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,34,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty Four Lakh only), in
two installments. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
approached the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The
Appellate Tribunal passed an interim order on condition that the
petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.60,63,791/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh
Sixty Three Thousand and Seven Hundred Ninety One only).
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said amount is
deposited. Now, order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is passed.
The petitioner sought stay of the same. The Debts Recovery Tribunal
directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
and Fifty Lakhs only) with the respondent bank within three weeks
i.e. on or before 21.07.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property
in question is an agricultural land and as such, the provisions of the
Act of 2002 would not be attracted. For that purpose, the learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21613 of 2023
Indian Bank and another vs. K.Pappireddiyar, 2019(6) CTC 332.
Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in
K.Sreedhar vs. M/s.Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2023 SC
6. According to learned counsel, even the revenue records show
that the property in question is an agricultural land. The petitioner is
using the said land for agricultural purposes and is cultivating the
crops. Photographs to that effect are also placed on record.
7. The petitioner has already challenged the sale certificate
proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. The
same are pending and interim orders are passed therein.
8. Now, it appears that the petitioner is challenging the action
of taking possession. The Debts Recovery Tribunal is seized with the
matter; interim order is passed directing the petitioner to deposit the
amount as a condition for stay.
9. It is not disputed that if the petitioner is aggrieved with the
said order, the petitioner has a remedy before the Debt Recovery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21613 of 2023
Appellate Tribunal. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal would be in
a better position to arrive at the disputed question of fact as to
whether the property in question is an agricultural land or is used for
other purpose also. The sale notice, for the sale of immovable
property as issued, depicts that there is a residential building with
poultry sheds in the land in question; whereas, according to the
petitioner, the revenue record shows that the land is an agricultural
land. The said disputed questions of fact can be advantageously gone
into by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
10. In the case of Indian Bank vs. Pappireddiyar (supra),
the matter had travelled to the High Court after the order of the
Debts Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The
Appellate Tribunal had reversed the decision of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal. When the matter came to the High Court, the High Court did
not discuss as to whether the property is an agricultural land or
otherwise. In the present case, the petitioner has not yet invoked the
jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The same is an efficacious
remedy available to the petitioner.
11. In case of K.Sreedhar vs. Raus Constructions (supra)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21613 of 2023
the Apex Court held that in view of the appellate remedy available,
the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition against
the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. As observed supra, whether
the land is an agricultural land or was used for residential purpose
along with poultry sheds, are all disputed questions of fact.
12. In light of the above and in view of the fact that alternate
remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain
the writ petition. The writ petition, as such, is disposed of. There will
be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.20985 and 20986 of
2023 are closed.
13. The petitioner may avail the alternate remedy as may be
permissible under law.
14. In case the petitioner requests the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Coimbatore, to decide the application expeditiously, the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, may consider the said request.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
21.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21613 of 2023
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
tar
To:
1.The Presiding Officer,
Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Coimbatore
2.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer/
Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Tiruppur District.
4.The Tashidar,
Palladam, Tiruppur District.
5.The Authorised Officer,
M/s.State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
No.377/1, Dr.Nanjappa Road,
behind N.S.Palaniappa Nursing Home,
Coimbatore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.21613 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(tar)
WP No.21613 of 2023
21.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
