Writ jurisdiction is restricted when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists. Intervention is limited to clear cases of jurisdictional error, fraud, or breach of natural justice. Furthermore, in property descriptions, boundaries prevail over stated area measurements when resolving identification disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, C.J.

The first appellant claims that he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor, but that his property has been illegally taken possession of by the Bank. The second appellant, though claims to be a guarantor, has raised a dispute with regard to the identity of the mortgaged property.

2. The Bank, in exercise of its power under Section 13(4) read with Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI Act), has taken possession of the properties which, according to the Bank, has been mortgaged by the principal borrower during his lifetime. In the proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Bank filed the affidavit contemplated under (1) of the SARFAESI Act, and the procedure prescribed therein was duly followed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

3. It appears that a Surveyor was appointed to identify the property in question. The grievance of the appellants with regard to the report prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, forming part of Ext.P20, is that although the Chief Judicial Magistrate had come to a finding that the properties were not identifiable and directed the authorised officer to take steps, no such steps were taken. However, the Advocate Commissioner appointed in M.C.No.235 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, without the third respondent taking any such steps, issued Ext.P21 notice illegally, arbitrarily and perversely, and took possession of the same unidentified property, including 1.43 Ares of land belonging to the first appellant, who was not a party to Ext.P16.

4. The learned counsel of the appellants submitted that in view of the law laid down in paragraph 29 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar & Ors. v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 1 a writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable. Paragraph 29 thus relied on by the appellants reads as follows:

“Sub-section (3) of S.14 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate or any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of S.14 shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority. The SARFAESI Act, therefore, attaches finality to the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate and this decision cannot be challenged before any Court or any authority. But this Court has repeatedly held that statutory provisions attaching finality to the decision of an authority excluding the power of any other authority or Court to examine such a decision will not be a bar for the High Court or this Court to exercise jurisdiction vested by the Constitution because a statutory provision cannot take away a power vested by the Constitution. To quote, the observations of this Court in Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore , 2012 (11) SCC 224:

“17. Considering the settled position of law that the powers of this Court under Art.136 of the Constitution and the powers of the High Court under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution could not be affected by the provisions made in a Statute by the Legislature making the decision of the Tribunal final or conclusive, we hold that sub-section (1) of S.245S of the Act, insofar as, it makes the advance ruling of the Authority binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction and on the Commissioner and income - tax authorities subordinate to him, does no