SARFAESI agricultural-land exemption depends on the mortgage deed, while disputed asset identification is not resolved in writ jurisdiction.

A security interest qualifies for the SARFAESI agricultural-land exemption under section 31 only where the mortgage deed specifically creates the charge over agricultural land; revenue records alone do not change the nature of the secured asset described in the mortgage. On the possession issue, section 14 was treated as empowering the Magistrate to deliver the secured asset to the creditor through a Commissioner, and a disputed claim that the house property lay outside the scheduled property could not be resolved in writ proceedings on the bare record. The exemption was therefore unavailable, and the possession challenge was not established.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the security interest created by the petitioner was in agricultural land so as to attract the exemption under section 31 of the SARFAESI Act; (ii) whether the taking of possession of the house property pursuant to the warrant under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was without authority because the asset allegedly lay outside the scheduled property.

Issue (i): whether the security interest created by the petitioner was in agricultural land so as to attract the exemption under section 31 of the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: The mortgage deed described the secured asset as land admeasuring Ac.1.03 guntas and did not describe it as agricultural land. The Court treated the petitioner as a borrower within the SARFAESI framework because he had created a mortgage as security for the financial assistance advanced to the principal borrower. Section 31 was held to protect only a security interest specifically created in agricultural land. Mere production of revenue records under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 did not alter the nature of the security created in the mortgage deed.

Conclusion: The exemption under section 31 was not available, and the SARFAESI were not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the taking of possession of the house property pursuant to the warrant under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was without authority because the asset allegedly lay outside the scheduled property.

Analysis: Section 14 was treated as authorising the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to secure possession of the secured asset and forward it to the secured creditor, including through a Commissioner. The schedule in the warrant matched the mortgage description, and there was no credible material showing that the house bearing D.No. 1-5-230 was in Survey No. 51/AA rather than Survey No. 51/EE. The Court also held that such a factual dispute could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction on the material placed.

Conclusion: The possession taken under the warrant was not shown to be unauthorised.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both the statutory exemption issue and the property-identification issue, and the petitioner was left to pursue any other remedies available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A security interest must be specifically created in agricultural land to claim the SARFAESI exemption under section 31, and disputed questions of title or identification of the secured asset are not ordinarily resolved in writ jurisdiction on a bare factual record.

---