S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C. J.

( 1 ) IN both these appeals, as common order is under challenge and common question of law is involved, they are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

( 2 ) THE facts reveal that the lands in question were in possession of the appellants but were mortgaged with Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the "bank") since 16th february, 2006. The bank, after issuance of notice under Section 13 (2) of The securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Securitisation Act"), having failed to receive any reply, took steps under Section 14 of the said Act requesting District Magistrate, Rajkot to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets. The appellants were borrowers/mortgagors or tenants in actual possession of the portion of the property, being aggrieved by such action, preferred an Appeal under Section 17 of the said Act, which was opposed by the Bank on the ground that it has not taken any measures under Section 13 (4) of the Act and thereby appeals under Section 17 were not maintainable. The Presiding Officer, Debt recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad accepting the contention raised by the Bank observed that "it is difficult to hold on the strength of the order of the District Magistrate passed under Section 14 of the NPA Act that the possession is taken or the measures under section 13 (4) are taken" and thereby dismissed all the appeal being premature and not maintainable.

( 3 ) IT appears that the appellants thereafter challenged the order dated 6th January, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate. Rajkot, whereby it was ordered to take over the possession of the property by filing different writ petitions, which, having dismissed, the present appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 29. 10. 2009.

( 4 ) LEARNED single Judge, while noticed that there was a provision of appeal under Section 17 of the Act, against action under Section 13 (4) of the Act and in the circumstances, authority acting under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act is not required to act beyond the scope of provisions of Section 14 of the Act by usurping adjudicatory power available to DRT under Section 17 of the Act, refused to grant relief, taking into consideration the fact the appellants have not challenged the order dated 9th April, 2009 passed by DRT-II, Ahmedabad and there is no legal infirmity in the order dated 6th January, 2009.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the DRT having not entertained the appeal under Section 17 of the Act on the ground that no action has been taken under Section 13 (4) of the act, the appellants had no other option but to challenge the order dated 6th January, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate. Rajkot under Section 14. otherwise in absence of any other remedy against such action, the learned judge ought to have decided the question whether such action taken was in accordance with Securitisation Act and the Rules thereunder. It was also contended that if the Bank has not taken any action under Section 13 (4)of the Act, the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take steps and pass order under section 14 of the Act.

( 6 ) PER contra, according to learned counsel for the Bank, unless symbolic or actual possession of the land is taken, it cannot be alleged that any measure is taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Action under Section 14 only shows intention of the Bank to take steps under Section 13 (4) in future. It was also contended that the order dated 9th April, 2009 passed by DRT-II, Ahmedabad was not under challenge and as the learned single judge was deciding the question of legality and propriety of the order dated 6th January, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, rajkot under Section 14 of Act, in absence of any infirmity in the said proceeding under Section 14, the writ petitions were rig