Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

VivekanandA. Vs. the Authorized Officer

VivekanandA. vs The Authorized Officer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 20, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1128901

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

VivekanandA.

Respondent

The Authorized Officer

Excerpt

.....to judge bp p.r. ramachandra menon, j.======================== w.p.(c). no. 5051 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- dated this the 20th day of february, 2014 judgment the petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the proceedings pursued by the respondent bank invoking the remedy under the sarfaesi act. many a ground has been raised in the writ petition, in particular that the property concerned is an 'agricultural land' which is outside the purview of the 'act' by virtue of section 31 (i) of the said act. the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner could not approach the drt due to the fact that the presiding officer recently retired from the office, on attaining the age of superannuation and that there is no regular sitting.2. the regular sitting of the drt has reportedly commenced w.e.f. 12.2.2014 and as such, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the drt for redressal of his grievance. moreover, there is a disputed question w.p.(c). no. 5051 of 2014 -2- of fact, as to whether the property concerned is an agricultural land excluded by virtue of section 31(i) or not. there cannot be interference by this court as a matter of course, in view of the legal question made clear by the apex court as per the decision reported in union bank of india vs. satyawati tondon and others [(2010) 8 scc110. in view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed of without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move the drt. sd/- p.r. ramachandra menon judge kvr/ /true copy/ p.s. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY20141ST PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 5051 of 2014 (F) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------- VIVEKANANDA, AGED45YEARS, S/O.V.SHANMUGHA KOUNDER, KULLARAYAN PALAGAM PALANIYAR PALAYAM P.O.,KOZHINJAMPARA PALAKKAD-678555. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS : ----------- 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT AND CHIEF MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL BANK LTD.ZONAL OFFICE, FEDERAL TOWERS, MAVOOR ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673016.

2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SANJO TOWERS, OPP.KSRTC BUS STATION, PALAKKAD -678014.

3. THE MANAGER THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678553. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2002-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 5051 of 2014 (F) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.638/2009 OF SRO CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAST BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT.12-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHINJAMPARA. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.26-10-2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHINJAMPARA. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE R.C.BOOK OF TRACTOR NO.KL9 Y2445 EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WELFARE BOARD DT.12-6-2013. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN KOZHINJAMPARA DT.NIL. EXHIBIT P6A : TRUE COPY OF THE VERIFIED CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KOZHINJAMPARA DT.18-2-2014. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY GROUND WATER AUTHORITY DT.28-6-2010. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE FOLIOS OF PASS BOOK ISSUED BY R3 IN RESPECT OF LOAN NO.1646900000089. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTIES COVERED BY EXT.P1 DOCUMENT. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DT.7-1-2014 ISSUED BY R2. EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DT.15-1-2014 ISSUED BY R1. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

======================== W.P.(C). No. 5051 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the proceedings pursued by the respondent Bank invoking the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. Many a ground has been raised in the writ petition, in particular that the property concerned is an 'agricultural land' which is outside the purview of the 'Act' by virtue of Section 31 (i) of the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner could not approach the DRT due to the fact that the presiding officer recently retired from the office, on attaining the age of superannuation and that there is no regular sitting.

2. The regular sitting of the DRT has reportedly commenced w.e.f. 12.2.2014 and as such, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the DRT for redressal of his grievance. Moreover, there is a disputed question W.P.(C). No. 5051 of 2014 -2- of fact, as to whether the property concerned is an agricultural land excluded by virtue of Section 31(i) or not. There cannot be interference by this Court as a matter of course, in view of the legal question made clear by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC110. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed of without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move the DRT. Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE kvr/ /True copy/ P.S. to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial