G.P. Mittal, J.

1. Petitioner Bijender Kumar Gupta by virtue of this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing of the orders dated 02.11.2011 and 01.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in Complaint Case No.2098/2/2011 whereby in pursuance of the application under Section 14(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), the Receiver was directed to take into possession the land measuring 16 Biswas out of Khasra No.59/17, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka, Delhi-41 and land measuring 1 Bigha 4 Biswas out of Khasra No.59/17(1-04) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka, Delhi-41 and the objections preferred by the Petitioner were dismissed.

2. One Anil Kumar, proprietor of M/s Anil Trading Company had mortgaged the earlier stated land in favour of the Corporation Bank(Respondent No.1) by depositing its title deeds on 10.03.2000. Letters of equitable mortgage were signed by the said Anil Kumar on 02.05.2001 for the purpose of securing the cash credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs granted in his favour. Prem Prakash, Sunil Dutt and Ashok Kumar stood as guarantors for repayment of the said loan. Anil Kumar defaulted in repayment of the loan. Respondent No.1, therefore, preferred an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(DRT Act) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal(DRT). Subsequently, the application under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act was moved by Respondent No.1 to take possession of the mortgaged land.

3. In the instant writ petition, the case of the Petitioner is that the land in question is an agricultural land and the provisions of SARFAESI Act are not attracted to such land. It is averred that the Petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the said land. Before purchasing the land in question on 11.10.2005, the Petitioner made inquiries from the Revenue Department as also the Office of the Sub-Registrar (but he could not find any interest having been created in respect of the land). On moving of an application by the Petitioner, the land in question was also mutated in his favour. The Petitioner relies on the definition of ‘land’ as given under Section 3(13) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (DLR Act). It is thus stated that the action of the learned ACMM in appointing a Receiver for taking possession of the Petitioner's land and then dismissing his application for directions is illegal and without application of judicial mind.

4. Respondent No.1 filed reply to the present writ petition supported by an affidavit of its Manager. The sum and substance of its case is that on 20.01.2005, an application under Section 17 of DRT Act was filed before the DRT for recovery of Rs.31,31,990.65P against Anil Kumar and the guarantors. In the said application, all the Defendants including the principal guarantor (Anil Kumar) were proceeded ex parte. A sum of Rs.78,73,616/- inclusive of interest was due against the borrowers and the guarantors upto 30.09.2012. The order dated 02.11.2011 was passed by the learned ACMM under Section 14(2) of SARFAESI Act. Section 17 of SARFAESI Act provides for an appeal. Thus, in view of an alternative efficacious remedy available, a writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the sale deed annexed with the petition does not relate to the property in question.

5. It is averred that the land in question cannot be said to be an agricultural land as no agricultural activity is being carried out on the land in question. Rather, a banquet hall has been constructed over the land and commercial activity is being carried thereon. It is also stated that Anil Kumar could not have sold the property in question on 11.10.2005 to the Petitioner as Respondent No.1 had already moved the Court of the learned ACMM on 20.01.2005 for taking possession of the land. Hence,