IMPORTANT POINT
Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 specifically excludes “any security interest created in agricultural land”. Eventhough the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue as to whether the property in question is an agricultural or not, is a jurisdictional issue which requires adjudication and decision, by a writ court, without availing the alternative forum, which is a final fact finding forum, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is purely a question of fact.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Assailing the correctness of the judgment made in W.P.(C)No.16058 of 2019 dated 13th June 2019, directing the writ petitioners to move the alternative Statutory Forum provided under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 instant writ appeal is filed.

2. Short facts of the case are as follows:

Appellants have availed loan from Syndicate Bank/respondent No.1 and offered certain properties as secured assets. Since the appellants committed default, the bank initiated recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Appellants approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing S.A.No.831 of 2012 and the same was dismissed holding that the land offered is not an agricultural property. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the DRT, appellants approached the writ court, by filing W.P.(C)No.16058 of 2019. Writ court rejected writ petition by holding thus:

“6. It is now well settled in law that the availability of alternative remedy does not always impair this Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if it is found that the order impugned has been issued without jurisdiction and is perverse. However, in the case at hand, the petitioners do not have a case that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has issued Ext.P5 without jurisdiction; and on the contrary, they concede that the said Tribunal had full jurisdiction under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Pertinently, their contention is that this order is in error, both factually and in law, because the property is an agricultural land but that the Tribunal has concluded otherwise in spite of the alleged overwhelming evidence against such conclusion.

7. Obviously therefore, the petitioners' case is that Ext.P5 is a wrong order, issued erroneously by the DRT but not that the DRT did not have jurisdiction to pass it at all. This is clear from the fact that the petitioners themselves have invoked the remedy of filing of Securitisation Application before the DRT, without being under any doubt regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; and therefore, to now say that the Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction in having issued Ext.P5 order cannot appeal to reason or to logic.

In the afore circumstances, I am certainly of the view that this is a case where the petitioners ought to challenge Ext.P5 order by approaching the alternative statutory Forum under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since not even a whisper is made in the pleading that Ext.P5 has been issued by the DRT without valid jurisdiction.”

3. Heard Sri.Titus Mani Vettom, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Sri.K.P.Sujesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Syndicate Bank. We have gone through the materials available on record.

4. Mr.Titus Mani Vettom, learned counsel for the appellants began his arguments by stating that it is lingering in the mind of some Judges of this court that no writ is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the orders passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, which according to him is contrary to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1. He further submitted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) went wrong, in arriving at the conclusion that the secured asset is not an agricultural land, and therefore interference of this court is needed by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another v.Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85. Relevant portions quoted by the learned counsel read as under:

“15. It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well s