In view of this ratio, the entire burden lies on the applicant that at the time of availing the loan, the secured asset was used exclusively for agricultural purpose. The applicant relies on the report of the agricultural officer marked as Annexure A4. But the report does not show, whether he personally visited the spot to ascertain the same and what is the status of the land at the time of availing the loan. In absence of the same, the report of the Advocate Commissioner is not at all helpful to prove the claim of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant relies a report of the Advocate Commissioner deputed in OS No.387/2019 to prove his case. The said Civil Suit was found not maintainable, accordingly the same was dismissed. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in the said Civil Suit mentioned existence of some trees over the subject matter property, the said commissioner has no competency to ascertain the age of the trees and his report about the age of the tree is merely an opinion which cannot be accepted to prove the case of the applicant. So also the report of the said Advocate Commissioner does not reveal what was the status of the subject matter property at the time of availing the loan. But his report also indicates about existence of residential houses over the said
