AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.51/2026 (Application for condonation of delay filed by appellant)
There is a delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as stated in the application. After considering all facts, the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is allowed accordingly.
The respondents have filed S.A. bearing No. 295/2025 titled as Dalbir Singh & another V. UCO Bank which was stated to be pending before DRT-III, Chandigarh. 3.DRT-III, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 08.10.2025 has dismissed the S.A. by observing that the mortgage property was not registered with the central registry and further the subject property was an agricultural land. It was also observed that notices under Section 13(2) and Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act were not served properly upon the respondents. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 is reproduced as under:
This provision shows that it is mandatory for every secured creditor to get register the security interest created in its favour with central registry before initiation of securitization proceedings.
Sh. Peeyush Mittal, Advocate was not able to show any provision which provides that registration of mortgaged property with the central registry was not required. Admittedly, the property in question is agricultural land as mentioned in the Jamabandi Annexure A2. If on a piece of that land a shed was constructed for dairy purpose then it is of no consequence.
Section 31 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides than in certain cases provisions of this act are not applied. In section 31(i) of the act provides that any security interest created in agricultural land. This shows that provisions of securitization act will not be apply in respect of agricultural land.
Along with the reply, the copy of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act along with the photocopy of receipts of registered post were filed as Annexure R1. Without filing of track consignment record it cannot be presumed or assumed that the said notice was served upon the applicants. Copy of possession notice was also filed as Annexure R2 but no track consignment record was filed to prove that the said notice was served personally upon the applicants. No proof of pasting of possession notice upon the property in question was filed by respondent.
In light of above discussion this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that respondent has not served the notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as per rules. SARFAESI proceedings were initiated in respect of agricultural land as well as without registering the property in question with central registry. Therefore, there is a good ground to grant the relief to applicants and this SA is liable to be allowed because there is nothing left for adjudication.
Accordingly, SA is allowed and proceedings initiated by respondent since the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is hereby quashed.
Sh. I.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant draw the attention of the Tribunal to the CERSAI registration certificate. The perusal of which reflects that the subject property was registered with Central Registry on 03.10.2025 i.e. after filing of the SA. The counsel for the appellant could not establish that the subject property was not an agricultural land. Sh. I.S. Chauhan, Advocate draw the attention towards certain photographs to reflect that construction existed over the property. However, no evidence was produced to reflect that the land was ceased to be agricultural in nature.
There is not illegality on infirmity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. After considering the relevant provisions, the appeal is dismissed accordingly being devoid of any merit.