ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. whereby the application of petitioner- Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) has been dismissed. 2. The loan account of proforma respondent Rajinder Singh was declared NPA on 06.06.2017. Demand made by petitioner-Bank in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, proforma respondent failed to liquidate his liability. The outstanding dues as on 31.05.2019 against the account of proforma respondent was Rs.26,66,670/-. The loan was obtained by proforma respondent from petitioner- Bank for construction of house in the sum of Rs.24,00,000/-. 3. In order to secure the aforesaid loan, proforma respondent mortgaged immovable property comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 6/10 to 14, Khasra No. 87/1, measuring 0-2 bighas which form 2/565 share in total land measuring 28-5 bighas, situated at Mohal Gondapir, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. 4. The loan having remained unpaid, petitioner-Bank approached respondent No.1 District Magistrate, Sirmaur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for assistance in taking possession of secured asset. The District Magistrate, Sirmaur dismissed the application of petitioner-Bank vide impugned order. 5. Heard. 6. The District Magistrate, Sirmaur has dismissed the application of petitioner-Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on two grounds, first being that the mortgaged land was agricultural and was exempted under Section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act and secondly, that since the mortgaged land formed only a share in a joint holding, petitioner-Bank could not be handed over the possession thereof. 7. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act mandates the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the secured asset or other document relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof on the request of the secured creditor and forward such asset and document to such secured creditor provided the secured creditor complies with the conditions provided under such Section. Perusal of the conditions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, does not contemplate any such inquiry as has been done by the District Magistrate in the instant case. 8. Perusal of the conditions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, does not contemplate any such inquiry as has been done by the District Magistrate in the instant case. 8. The application of secured creditor has been rejected by the District Magistrate on the ground that the secured asset was an agricultural land and as such was exempted under Section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act. It was not in dispute before the District Magistrate that proforma respondent had obtained a loan from petitioner-Bank for construction of a house on the secured asset and the house had in fact been constructed. This being so, there was no reason for the District Magistrate to have construed the secured asset to be an agricultural land. It was the case of none of the parties that the construction raised on secured asset was in the nature of being subservient to agriculture. The District Magistrate is also the Collector of the District and, as such, was aware that the nature of agricultural land if changed to non-agricultural purpose, would not remain the same notwithstanding the period taken for updation of revenue records. The District Magistrate, in the context of the object of SARFAESI Act, was not justified in denying the prayer of petitioner-Bank in light of the observations made hereinabove. 9. In ITC Limited vs. Blue Coast Hotels Limited and others (2018) 15 SCC 99 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the fact situation involved in the instant case has held as under: “Inclusion of agricultural land as security interest in the notice of recovery 35. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the debtor questioned the correctness of the finding of the High Court on the ground that the inclusion of agricultural land as security interest could not have been validly included in the notice for recovery of the secured loan. The correctness of the finding of the High Court depends on the effect of Section 31 (i) of the Act, which reads as follows:- “31. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases-The provision of this Act shall not apply to- (a) – (h) xx xx xx (i) any security interest created in agricultural land.” 36. The purpose of enacting Section 31(i) and the meaning of the term “agricultural land” assume significance. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases-The provision of this Act shall not apply to- (a) – (h) xx xx xx (i) any security interest created in agricultural land.” 36. The purpose of enacting Section 31(i) and the meaning of the term “agricultural land” assume significance. This provision, like many others is intended to protect agricultural land held for agricultural purposes by agriculturists from the extraordinary provisions of this Act, which provides for enforcement of security interest without intervention of the Court. The plain intention of the provision is to exempt agricultural land from the provisions of the Act. In other words, the creditor cannot enforce any security interest created in his favour without intervention of the Court or Tribunal, if such security interest is in respect of agricultural land. The exemption thus protects agriculturists from losing their source of livelihood and income i.e. the agricultural land, under the drastic provision of the Act. It is also intended to deter the creation of security interest over agricultural land as defined in Section 2 (zf). Thus, security interest cannot be created in respect of property specified in Section 31. 37. In the present case, security interest was created in respect of several parcels of land, which were meant to be a part of single unit i.e. the five star hotel in Goa. Some parcels of land now claimed as agricultural land were apparently purchased by the debtor from agriculturists and are entered as agricultural lands in the revenue records. The debtor applied to the revenue authorities for the conversion of these lands to non-agricultural lands which is pending till date due to policy decision. 38. It is undisputed that these lands were mortgaged in favour of the creditor under a deed dated 26.02.2010. Obviously, since no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural lands and yet it was so created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and that the debtor offered the land as security on this basis. The undisputed position is that the total land on which the Goa Hotel was located admeasures 182225 sq. mtrs. Of these, 2335 sq. mtrs. are used for growing vegetables, fruits, shrubs and trees for captive consumption of the hotel. The undisputed position is that the total land on which the Goa Hotel was located admeasures 182225 sq. mtrs. Of these, 2335 sq. mtrs. are used for growing vegetables, fruits, shrubs and trees for captive consumption of the hotel. There is no substantial evidence about the growing of vegetables but what seems to be on the land are some trees bearing curry leaves and coconut. This amounts to about 12.8 % of the total area. 39. The Corporate Loan Agreement that deals with the mortgage in question in the relevant clause reads as follows:- ‘The Borrower shall create mortgage on Exclusive basis on the ‘Park Hyatt Goa Resort and Spa’ Hotel Property admeasuring 1, 82, 225 Sq Mtrs with a built up area of 25182 Sq. Mtrs situated at 263 C, Arossim, Canasaulim Goa.” The mortgage is thus intended to cover the entire property of the Goa Hotel. Prima facie, apart from the fact that the parties themselves understood that the lands in question are not agricultural, it also appears that having regard to the use to which they are put and the purpose of such use, they are indeed not agricultural.” 10. As regards the other ground on which the District Magistrate dismissed the application, suffice it to say that the District Magistrate has again exceeded his jurisdiction vested in him under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The possession of secured debtor i.e. proforma respondent on the secured asset was not in dispute. None of the co-sharer had come forward to raise any objection in this regard. Debtor had constructed a house on the secured asset and his possession was not in dispute. In this view of the matter, what was required was to hand over the possession of secured asset on as is where is basis to the secured creditor i.e. petitioner- Bank for achievement of purpose of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 11. In light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed, the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. is quashed and set-aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner-Bank filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act strictly in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. 12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.