MAHESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in the present Writ Petition is to the order dtd. 12/7/2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur in Securitisation Application No. 217/2023. By the said order, the interim application preferred by the petitioner seeking protection in view of the sale notice issued by respondent No.2 - Bank came to be rejected. The petitioner contends that the auction of the mortgaged property which is stated to be an agricultural land was illegal.

(2.) Initially, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4282/2023 seeking to challenge the auction of the mortgaged property. The Writ Petition was not entertained on 11/7/2023 since remedy of challenging such auction under Sec. 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act of 2002") was available. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid proceedings and in those proceedings, the interim application was moved seeking an order of protection. The Tribunal recorded submissions of both sides and rejected the application merely by observing as under :

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the mortgaged property as indicated in the sale deed dtd. 31/12/2009 as well as the notice for settling the sale proclamation issued in view of the order passed in Original Application No. 460/2016 having described the said land as agricultural land, it was not permissible to make the said land subject to such process. Reference was made to the decision in Paul Vs. T. Mohan And Another [(2020) 5 SCC 138] in that regard. It was therefore necessary for the Tribunal to have prima facie considered whether the said land is agricultural land or not before deciding the prayer for interim protection. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Indian Bank and Anr. Vs. K. Pappireddiyar and Anr. [AIR 2018 SC 3540]. To indicate bonafide of the petitioner, the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 (rupees one crore) was deposited with the Tribunal and it was prayed that the possession of the petitioner be protected.