9. Per contra , Mr.Mayank Mathur, counsel for the respondent bank has argued that the land over which there exists apple orchards cannot be said to be agricultural land. Apple trees, once planted, grow of their own. They do not require any extra efforts. Regarding the judgments cited at the Bar by counsel for the applicant, counsel for the respondent bank submitted that they have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand. As far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (supra) case is concerned, counsel submitted that the same was given under the Income Tax Act. As far as the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in Eshwar Purushothaman Gardens (supra) and J. Malinga (supra) case are concerned, counsel submitted that in those cases the issue involved was whether land over which cardamom plantation is carried out, is agricultural land or not. Hon’ble the Madras High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case held that it is agricultural land. Mr.Mathur, counsel for the respondent bank has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.238 of 2020, titled U.M. Ramesh Rao and others versus Union Bank of India and others, decided on 29.01.2021 . In U.M. Ramesh Rao (supra) case, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held that the land over which the coffee plantation is done is not agricultural land. Mr.Mathur submitted that the land over which there exists apple orchards cannot be said to be agricultural land.
