Dismissed

Mrs Manju Rajeev v. State Bank of India

DRAT23 Jul 2026REGULAR APPEAL/155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal by an appellant challenging the enforcement of security interest on agricultural land. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove the land was agricultural or that operations continued, citing Supreme Court precedents placing the burden on the borrower. The lower order dismissing the securitization application was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; order of DRT-II confirming refusal to call for records and quash possession notice is confirmed.

Mrs Manju Rajeev versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 23^rd day of July, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶4

RA (SA) 155 of 2025

¶5

(arising out of SA No. 157 of 2017 on the file of DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam)

¶6

Between

¶7

Mrs. Manju Rajeev, W/o. K.K. Rajeev, Vettoor House, Kudavechoor P.O., Vaikom, Kottayam, Kerala, Pin – 686 144

¶8

….. Appellant

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Vaikom Branch, Karamel Complex, Vaikom P.O., Kottayam, Kerala – 686 141

¶11

….. Respondent

¶12

Counsel for Appellant: M/s. G. Sanjeevi Counsel for Respondent: M/s. B. Raghavulu Naidu

¶13

Page 1 of 8

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This appeal is filed against order passed in SA 157 of 2017 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam on 31.5.2024.

¶16

The Securitization Application has been filed to call for records pertaining to Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 notice and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable under law and for all other incidental and consequential reliefs.

¶17

The case of the Appellant in brief, as set out in the Securitization Application, is that Appellant is an agriculturist and doing agricultural activities, who has co-availed, along with her husband. Credit facilities from the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore under the ‘Kissan Credit Card Scheme’ in the credit facility called “Suvidha” was availed. Her husband also availed a car loan. The primary security for the loans is 4 acres of agricultural land and other two items of agricultural lands i.e., (1) 16.19 Ares of agricultural land in Survey No.498/4 of Vechoor Village, Vaikom Taluk in the name of Appellant’s husband Sri K.K. Rajeev, (2) 10.12 Ares of agricultural land in Survey No.524/4/1 of Vechoor Village, Vaikom Taluk in the name of the Appellant.

¶18

The parents of the borrower also offered additional security by

¶19

creating security interest of 8.10 Ares of agricultural land in Survey No. 358/15 of Panachikad Village, Kottayam Taluk. Since 2010,

¶20

Page 2 of 8

¶21

Appellant’s husband has been enjoying credit facilities from the Respondent. Credit facilities were availed for agricultural activities. Respondent refused to renew the credit facilities and, therefore, the account became NPA. The Respondent issued demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 14.2.2017 referred to in Annexure A1, followed by possession notice dated 9.5.2017, referred to in Annexure A2 in respect of Appellant’s parents land of 8.10 Ares of land in Survey No.358/15, Panachikad Village, Kottayam Taluk.

¶22

The main grounds taken are that the lands are

¶23

i) agricultural lands and, therefore, exempted under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002;

¶24

ii) Respondent Bank has not complied with the legal formalities of Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in serving, affixing and publishing the possession notice;

¶25

iii) The Respondent charged penal interest against the RBI guidelines;

¶26

iv) There is no bifurcation of principal and interest.

¶27

On these grounds, the Securitization Application was filed. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam, on considering the materials produced and submissions of the Learned

¶28

Page 3 of 8

¶29

Counsel appearing for the Parties, rejected the grounds raised and dismissed the Securitization Application. Thus, this appeal.

¶30

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the properties are really agricultural lands. Appellant produced Agriculture Officer’s certificate to show that the land in question is an agricultural land and there are 18 coconut trees, 12 Aracnut trees, Vegetables, 100 plaintain are seen cultivated. Agricultural Officer’s certificate was overlooked, rather, not considered by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRTII, Kerala at Ernakulam properly. The possession notice was not properly affixed and published in newspapers. This ground was also not considered. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam and for allowing this appeal.

¶31

Responding to these submissions, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that the real party aggrieved in SARFAESI measures against the property concerned is the owners/guarantors, as mortgagers. They haven’t filed the Securitization Application. The Securitization Application is filed only by the borrower. Therefore, the very filing of the Securitization Application by the Appellant is questionable and illegal. The Advocate Commissioner’s report clearly shows that there is a residential building in the property and EB connection confirms that EB connection was given to a residential property. There are no systematic agricultural operations going on.

¶32

Page 4 of 8

¶33

There are stray plants and trees here and there, including flowers. At best, it can be termed only as a garden attached to the residential property. Thus, he submitted that Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam considered every aspect and dismissed this Securitization Application.

¶34

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶35

From the narration of the case of the Parties, the main grounds

¶36

raised in the Securitization Application are that –

¶37

i) The land in question is an agricultural land; and

¶38

ii) There is no proper affixture of possession notice, and publication in newspapers.

¶39

In so far as the submission with regard to affixture and publication of possession notice is concerned, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam, after going through the records, has given a positive finding that possession notice was properly served by the production of documents, including the report of affixture and paper publication made in two newspapers i.e., the Indian Express and Mathrubhumi. Affixture of possession notice is also produced. Therefore, the grounds taken that there was no proper affixture of possession notice and publication of possession notice was rightly rejected by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam, and it requires no reconsideration.

¶40

Page 5 of 8

¶41

Except the Agricultural Officer’s certificate dated 15.5.2017, no other document is produced by the Appellant to show that the agricultural operations were going on at the time of creation of mortgage and continued till now. This certificate reads as follows:

¶42

“The property belonging to P.N. Sathyaneshan, Karthika in panachikad village, Kolludu, Alapuzha Kara, having an extent of 23 cents in Sy.No.358/15 have been examined and in this property there are 18 coconut trees, 12 Aracnut, Vegetables, 100 plaintain are seen cultivated. This certificate is issued for producing before SBI Vaikkom Branch and certifying the same.”

¶43

To substantiate the claim made in the certificate that there are 18 coconut trees, 12 Aracnut trees, Vegetables, and 100 plaintain, no other documents are produced. Though revenue records are not conclusive proof of the fact that the lands are cultivated and, therefore, agricultural lands, even those revenue records are not produced by the Appellant. On the other hand, the report of the Advocate Commissioner shows that there is a residential house with electricity and boundary on three sides. There are also residential houses adjoining the said land. Therefore, prima facie , evidence is available to give a conclusive finding that the lands are not agricultural lands.

¶44

The Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K. Sreedhar Vs. M/s. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., & others in Civil Appeal No.7402/2022 – 2023 KHC 6012 , Indian Bank & another Vs. K. Pappireddiyar & another reported in 2018 (18) SCC , and ITC

¶45

Page 6 of 8

¶46

Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., & others reported in 2018 (4) SCC 793 to conclude that the lands are not agricultural lands.

¶47

15. In K. Sreedhar Vs. M/s. Raus Constructions Pvt. Ltd., &

¶48

others , it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the burden was upon the borrower to prove that the secured properties were agricultural lands and actually being used as agricultural lands and/or agricultural activities were going on.

¶49

In Indian Bank & another Vs. K. Pappireddiyar & another , it

¶50

was held that the question as to whether the land is an agricultural land has to be determined on the basis of totality of the facts and circumstances, including the nature and character of the land, use to which it was put and the purpose and intent of the Parties on the date on which security interest was created.

¶51

17. In ITC Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., & others , it was

¶52

upheld that, obviously, since no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural lands and yet it was so created in respect of the agricultural land goes to show that the Parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and later offered that land as security on this basis.

¶53

The aforesaid decisions make it clear as to how it is the duty of the borrower to prove that the land in question is an agricultural land and agricultural operations were carried on prior to the creation of mortgage and continued. Even when an agricultural land is

¶54

Page 7 of 8

¶55

mortgaged, it goes to show that the Party did not intend to treat the land as an agricultural land.

¶56

As already stated, Appellant has not produced any concrete evidence to show that the land in question is agricultural land and agricultural operations were being carried out when security interest was created and continued. No material is produced or submissions made in support of other grounds raised in the Securitization Application.

¶57

Therefore, this Tribunal finds that the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam has considered every aspect and rightly dismissed the Securitization Application. It needs no interference.

¶58

Accordingly, the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Kerala at Ernakulam dated 31.5.2024 passed in SA No. 157 of 2017 is confirmed and appeal RA (SA) 155 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶59

The cost of this appeal is to be borne by both the Parties.

¶60

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶61

[Dictated to Stenographer (NN) in open court, transcribed by him, corrected, and signed by me, this 23^rd day of July, 2026]

¶62

Sd/(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶63

Page 8 of 8

Mrs Manju Rajeev v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Manju Rajeev v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Madras Gange Room Equipment (P) Ltd.

R P K Jeyakumar versus Axis Bank

Arasu Filling Station versus Indian Overseas Bank

V.Velayutham versus Laxmi Vilas Bank

Hydrose K S versus South Indian Bank

Varalakshmi versus Axis Bank