The court upheld that statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act must be pursued, and writ petitions related to it are not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.11829 of 2019, whereby the learned Single judge has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner.

2. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

“(i) To direct the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P1 representation and complete the proceedings within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) To grant such other reliefs which the petitioner may seek from time to time and this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to be granted to the circumstances.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that some of the property belonging to the appellant are proposed to be taken possession of illegally with reference to the powers available under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). Therefore, the appellant had submitted Ext.P1 representation to the 3rd respondent - Tahasildar, Kanayannur Taluk, complaining about the misconduct of the Village Officer concerned and requesting to take appropriate action. Since the representation was not decided or no action taken, the appellant had approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.11829 of 2019 seeking directions to the Tahasildar to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 representation preferred by the appellant. This Court vide judgment dated 16.08.2019, originally disposed of the writ petition directing the Tahasildar to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1. Subsequently R.P.No .1196 of 2019 was filed by the 3rd respondent Tahasildar, essentially pointing out the entire proceedings leading to the taking over possession of the property as complained by the appellant. This review petition was allowed and the judgment dated 16.08.2019 was recalled to the files of this Court. In the review petition it is stated that the contentions of the appellant was already taken note of in C.M.P.No s.1557 of 2017 and 2798 of 2017 in CMP No.2816 of 2016 before the CJM, Ernakulam which were disposed of by order dated 06.10.2017, by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner had permitted the appellant to show the title deed of the property in question, so as to sustain the contention with respect to the mistake in the property as contended by the appellant. Annexure 6 is the report of the Village Officer, wherein it is stated that the Village Officer has identified the property. On this basis Annexure 7 order dated 25.04.2018 has been issued by the CJM, Ernakulam in CMP No.922 of 2018 in CMP No.2816 of 2016, rejecting the prayers made in the petition, noticing that the appellant was not successful in pointing out and establishing that the property which has been already taken possession of was not the actual property. The order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the CJM, Ernakulam has attained finality. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 20.02.2025 dismissed the W.P(C)No.11829 of 2019 on the ground of suppression of these material facts as the issue raised in this case is already considered by the CJM, Ernakulam.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is incorrect and the same deserves to be set aside. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the Tahasildar has already found that the Village Officer has identified the property by mistake only. The learned Single Judge also does not consider the fact that because of the mistake of the Village Officer, the app