JAYAKUMAR R. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a farmer in possession of 123.52 Ares of agricultural land in Chittur Taluk of Palakkad District, is challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam in I.A. No.1633/2023. The IA was one filed seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the secured asset covered by Exts.P2 Sale Notice and report the lie and nature of the property and to report the nature of cultivation carried out in the property.

(2.) The petitioner states that he applied for an agricultural loan from the 1st respondent Bank. The Bank sanctioned ?25,50,000/-. Unprecedented floods in 2018 caused heavy loss to agriculture and the EMIs were defaulted. The floods were followed with Covid-19 pandemic. The Bank filed Ext.P1 OA. No.200/2022 in the DRT seeking to realise ?34,63,312.49. Ext.P2 e-auction notice was published thereafter on 10/4/2023, for recovery of ?37,16,813/-.

(3.) The petitioner states that it is evident from Ext.P1 OA that the loan sanctioned to the petitioner was agricultural loan intended for benefitting the farmers. No proceedings can be initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against an agricultural property. By Exts.P3 and P4, the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer have certified that the secured asset is an agricultural land. Ext.P5 photographs would also establish this fact.