Debaraj Routray v. Vijaya Bank

 W.P.(C) No. 265 of 2008

 20.07.2015

Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.P. Das, learned counsel for op
posite party no.1-Bank.
 The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the possession notice under An
enxure-6 issued by the opposite party-Bank under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reco
nstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for short The S
ecuritisation Act.

 Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the provisions of Section 31 (
i) of The Securitisation Act submits that the aforesaid Act is not applicable to any security
interest created in agricultural land and that since the land covered by Annexure-6 is purely
an agricultural land, therefore, the possession notice under Annexure-6 is legally vulnerable
and is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the notice under Annexure-6 was issued wh
en TMS No. 659 of 2000 was pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar.
 Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Bank submits that they have already obtained
a decree in TMS No. 659 of 2000 on 5.9.2011 from the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubanesw
ar. To such submission, Mr. Patnaik submitted that the Vijaya Bank can proceed thereof in acco
rdance with law. But the Bank Authorities cannot go ahead with Annexure-6.

 Considering submission made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in
view the provisions of Section 31 (i) of The Securitisation Act, which specifically states th
at provisions of The Securitization Act are not applicable to any security interest created in
 agricultural land, the notice issued under Annexure-6 is quashed and the writ petition is acc
ordingly allowed.

 The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
 Issue urgent certified copy.