Property not Proven as Agricultural Land: DRAT dismisses Appeal against PNB in SARFAESI Case [Read Order]
Concluding that the borrower had not substantiated his claims, the tribunal upheld the DRT's original orders and dismissed the appeals, directing the lower court to dispose of the original case expeditiously.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ) in Chennai has dismissed two appeals filed by a borrower against Punjab National Bank on citing failure to prove the property as agricultural land.
The appeals challenged the dismissal of his applications that sought to stay recovery proceedings and have the property inspected to determine if it was agricultural land, which is exempt from action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Neroth Marakkar, the appellant contended that the property in question was agricultural land, making it immune from SARFAESI proceedings. He claimed to be an agriculturist who had availed a Kisan Credit Card loan. To support his case, he sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and report on its nature and current use, and also requested a stay on all further recovery proceedings initiated by the bank.
The respondent bank countered that the loans were commercial in nature and that the borrower had never previously claimed the property was agricultural. The DRAT agreed, noting that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the land's agricultural character, either at the time of the mortgage's creation or that it generates agricultural income.
The tribunal stated that the borrower missed the first opportunity to raise this defense when he replied to the bank's initial demand notice in 2018, an opportunity he did not take.
The tribunal further reasoned that an Advocate Commissioner's inspection would only reveal the property's current state and not its character when the security interest was created in 2021.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
The DRAT also noted that the appellant was attempting to protract the proceedings, citing a police complaint alleging he had illegally re-taken possession of the property and a separate civil suit filed by his wife.
Concluding that the borrower had not substantiated his claims, the tribunal upheld the DRT's original orders and dismissed the appeals, directing the lower court to dispose of the original case expeditiously.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
