The main legal point established in the judgment is that the SARFAESI Act does not apply to security interest created in agricultural land, as per section 31(i) of the Act.

ORDER/JUDGMENT – Parties through their counsel.

2. The petitioners before this Court have filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 20-11-2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Badwani exercising the powers conferred under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act, 2002) for taking possession of secured asset i.e. agricultural land/holding admeasuring 5.350 hectares situated at village Lakhangaon, Tehsil Thikri, District Barwani.

3. Learned counsel has argued before this Court that keeping in view section 31 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is bad in law and the order passed by respondent No. 1, at the behest of respondent No. 2, deserves to be quashed by this Court. He has also fairly stated that respondent No. 2 has other legal remedies against the petitioners who are borrowers and guarantors as well in the present case.

4. A reply has been filed in the matter and the respondent No. 2-Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone has not disputed the aforesaid fact that the land in question is agricultural land, however they have stated that against an order passed under section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 there is a remedy under section 17 SARFAESI Act, 2002 to prefer an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It has also been stated that the petitioners have taken a loan of Rs. 3,16,000/- and the same was not paid. Respondent No. 2 has approached the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate has rightly passed an order directing the Tehsildar to take possession of the property in question. A prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the State has argued before this Court that the petitioners does have a remedy under section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, on the ground of alternative remedy the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. In the present case, the undisputed facts reveal that the petitioners are borrowers and guarantors in respect of the loan advanced by respondent No. 2-Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Khargone. The undisputed facts also reveal that the mortgaged property is agricultural land owned by the petitioners situated at Khasra Nos. 142, 146, 147 of Gram Lakhangaon Tehsil Thikri, District Badwani admeasuring 5.350 hectare. The aforesaid fact that the land in question is agricultural land is not in dispute. The relevant provisions as contained under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for deciding the controversy involved in the petition reads as under : –

“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset. – (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him –

(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and

(b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.

(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary.

(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Di