A borrower can contest possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act only through appeal under Section 17 after possession is taken.

1. In this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners would pray for quashment of the orders dated 13.04.2015 & 20.07.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2, Collector / District Magistrate, Raipur directing delivery of possession of the mortgaged property to the respondent No. 3, India Bulls Housing Finance Limited. By the second order, the District Magistrate has rejected the petitioners' application for review of the previous order dated 13.04.2015.

2. The petitioners had obtained loan of Rs.48,50,000/-, Rs.40,34,542/- and Rs.1,22,00,000/- for their business and for construction of house as well. The loan facility was secured by creating mortgage of the residential property bearing plot Nos. C - 94/2 and C - 95/2 situated at Scheme No. 2 of the Raipur Development Authority, Devendra Nagar, Phaphadih, Raipur. On petitioners' failure to repay the loan amount, proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act, 2002' ) were initiated. On petitioners' failure to repay the amount despite service of notice under S.13 (2) of the Act, 2002 and obtainment of symbolic possession under S.13(4), the respondent No. 3 moved an application under S.14 of the Act, 2002 for delivery of physical possession of the mortgaged property. It is this application of the respondent No. 3, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 13.04.2015.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the petitioners have alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under S.17 of the Act, 2002, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It has also been averred that the petitioners have concealed by not disclosing pendency of S.A. No. 154/2014 and S. A. No. 155/2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (for brevity 'the DRT' ), which have been preferred by the petitioners in the month of December, 2014 and the same are pending consideration.

4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the order passed under S.14 is not appealable because S.14(3) attaches finality to the proceeding, therefore, the petitioners have no other alternative remedy. It is also put forth by the petitioners that the possession has not yet been obtained, therefore, despite law laid down by the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar and others, 2013 KHC 4703 , the petitioners are not in a position to avail the remedy available under S.17 of the Act, 2002.

5. The question as to whether an order under S.14 of the Act, 2002 is appealable was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank (supra).: 2013 (9) scc 620) In the said matter, the following has been held by the Supreme Court in paras 26 to 28 : 26. It is in the abovementioned background of the legal frame of S.13 and S.14, we are required to examine the correctness of the conclusions recorded by the High Court. Having regard to the scheme of S.13 and S.14 and the object of the enactment, we do not see any warrant to record the conclusion that it is only after making an unsuccessful attempt to take possession of the secured asset, a secured creditor can approach the Magistrate. No doubt that a secured creditor may initially resort to the procedure under S.13(4) and on facing resistance, he may still approach the Magistrate under S.14. But, it is not mandatory for the secured creditor to make attempt to obtain possession on his own before approaching the Magistrate under S.14. The submission that such a construction would deprive the borrower of a remedy under S.17 is rooted in a misconception o