Summary
The Supreme Court remitted two writ petitions concerning the agricultural-land exclusion from SARFAESI enforcement. Revenue classification alone does not determine whether land is agricultural. Its nature, use and the parties’ purpose when the security interest was created require factual examination, which the High Court had omitted.
Issues
- Whether agricultural classification in revenue records conclusively attracts the exclusion from SARFAESI enforcement.
Provisions considered
- Sections 31(i) and 2(zf), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002The agricultural-land exclusion requires a factual determination; the definition of security interest, before and after amendment, excludes interests specified in section 31. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
Held
- Agricultural classification in revenue records is not conclusive. The nature and character of the land, its use at creation of the security interest, and the purpose and intent of the parties must be assessed together. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The High Court did not discuss the competing material or resolve the divergent DRT and DRAT findings concerning the land. A fresh decision on both writ petitions was required. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside. The bank’s and auction purchaser’s writ petitions restored for fresh, expeditious consideration. No costs.