2016 (5) TMI 385 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Respondents' actions in SARFAESI Act dispute, dismisses writ petition challenging Advocate-Commissioner's authority.

Sri C. Malla Reddy Versus The Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Limited, Hyderabad and others

Sri C. Malla Reddy Versus The Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Limited, Hyderabad and others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of possession taken by Respondents 1 and 2 of the residential house.2. Applicability of the SARFAESI Act to agricultural land.3. Validity of the actions taken by the Advocate-Commissioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Possession Taken by Respondents 1 and 2:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action of Respondents 1 and 2 in taking possession of the residential house as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional. The petitioner argued that the possession was taken without proper authority and beyond the scope of the warrant issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The court examined the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly Section 13, which allows a secured creditor to enforce security interest without court intervention, and Section 14, which empowers the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to assist in taking possession of secured assets. The court found that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction and correctly appointed the Advocate-Commissioner to execute the warrant. The court also noted that the petitioner did not file any objections during the possession process, and the Advocate-Commissioner's actions were deemed lawful.2. Applicability of the SARFAESI Act to Agricultural Land:The petitioner contended that the SARFAESI Act should not apply as the secured asset was agricultural land, which is exempt under Section 31 of the Act. The court analyzed the mortgage deed and found that the land was described as 'land' and not specifically as 'agricultural land.' The court emphasized that the petitioner himself described the land with structures on it, indicating it was not purely agricultural. The court also referenced the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, which defines land capable of being used for agriculture, but not necessarily being used as such. The court concluded that the land in question did not qualify for the agricultural exemption under Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act.3. Validity of the Actions Taken by the Advocate-Commissioner:The petitioner alleged that the Advocate-Commissioner exceeded her authority by taking possession of the house property. The court reviewed the Advocate-Commissioner's affidavit and found that she identified and executed the warrant correctly. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide any contrary evidence or work order to limit the execution method. Additionally, the court found no credible material to prove that the house was in Survey No. 51/AA instead of Survey No. 51/EE. The court ruled that the Advocate-Commissioner acted within her lawful authority, and her actions could not be faulted.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the actions taken by the Respondents and the Advocate-Commissioner. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding the applicability of the SARFAESI Act to agricultural land and the alleged excess of authority by the Advocate-Commissioner. The petitioner was advised to seek remedies through appropriate legal channels.