The petitioner's challenge to an order under Section 14 of the SERFAESI Act was dismissed, and the court emphasized the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. The captioned petition was filed on 29th January, 2016. On 05th February, 2016 this Court issued Notice and granted ex-parte ad-interim relief. The aforesaid Civil Application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the ad-interim relief was filed by the respondent on 14th March, 2016. It was adjourned to 29th March, 2016, then to 30th March, 2016, thereafter to 01st April, 2016 and further on 04th April, 2016. In course of said dates, the petitioner proposed terms of settlement which was ultimately not worked out as was not acceptable to respondent-Bank.

2. The learned advocates for the parties advanced arguments contesting the petition for final consideration of the controversy and the following order was passed on 07th April, 2016.

"Heard learned advocate Mr. A.M. Parekh for the petitioner and learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir Nanavati assisted by learned advocate Mr. Bhavesh Choksi in extenso.

2. Both the learned advocates consented and requested the Court to take up the main petition for final consideration. Therefore, keeping Civil Application pending, main petition was taken up and learned advocates for the parties were heard.

3. Learned advocates have stated that they have completed their pleadings and have concluded their submissions.

4. Reserved for orders."

3. The challenge in the main Special Civil Application is addressed to order dated 17th September, 2015/17th October, 2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SERFAESI Act) whereby the respondent-Bank was given the police assistance for the purpose of taking possession of the mortgaged property being Flat No. 203, 2nd Floor, Tower 2, Devnandan Infinity, Survey No. 266/2+3+4, Final Plot No. 281, T.P. No. 21 at Motera, Taluka Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.

3.1 The authorized officer of the respondent-HDFC Bank had applied before the District Magistrate, seeking to take possession of the property in the process of the actions taken under the SERFAESI Act. The petitioner questioned the legality of the order of the District Magistrate on the ground inter alia that because a person in possession and occupation of the property in question in capacity of holder of agreement to sell with possession from the original owners and that the order under Section 14 of the Act came to be passed by the District Magistrate at the instance of Bank, by by-passing his rights and without affording him the necessary opportunity.

3.2 The sequence of events and facts leading to the application under Section 14 of the Act, moved by the Bank and culminating into impugned order may be outlined.

"(i) On 29th November, 2011 an agreement to sell was executed between the original owner-developer and Mrs. Manjeet Kaur and Mr. Sandeep Harjit Singh followed by execution of sale deed dated 28th June, 2012.

(ii) On 20th November, 2011 said Mrs. Manjeet Kaur and Mr. Sandeep Harjit Singh entered into a loan agreement with the Bank for subject premises. On 07th July, 2012 they were put in possession by the original developer.

(iii) On 18th February, 2014 said Mrs. Manjeet Kaur and Mr. Sandeep Harjit Singh entered into an agreement to sell with Jyotsanaben Yograjsinh Chudasama and Geetaba Vanrajsinh Chudasama for subject premises. The pendency of loan was mentioned therein.

(iv) On 28th February, 2014 Mrs. Manjeet Kaur and Mr. Sandeep Harjit Singh executed a power of attorney in favour of Joytsnaben Yograjsinh Chudasama and Geetaba Vanrajsinh Chudasama wherein also pendency of loan is clearly mentioned.

(v) Jyotsnaben Yograjsinh Chudasama and Geetaba Vanrajsinh Chudasama executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner-Sonali Sunil Bhanushali on 26th July, 2014 in capacity as power of attorney holder of abovenamed original owners. On 03rd July, 2014 the petitioner-intending purchaser gave a public notice in daily newspaper inviting objections.

(