JUDGMENT Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. 1. Petitioners seeks to challenge the notice dated 07.06.2012 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) and consequently, all further actions including sale under public notice dated 08.03.2013 are sought to be set aside. 2. First petitioner has, admittedly, given a collateral security on behalf of the second petitioner. Second petitioner is, admittedly, a borrower of a term loan of US $ 3.05 millions from the first respondent bank. The affidavit in support of the writ petition states that the total outstanding loan as on 31.03.201 was Rs.25.70 crores and it is alleged that though the petitioners offered willingness for one time settlement (OTS), the first respondent bank was not coming forward. The first respondent bank had filed O.A.No.213 of 2012 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of dues on 13.01.2012. It is alleged that the first respondent bank also gave noticed under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 07.06.2012 to which the petitioners claim that they have given a reply and without disposing of the said representation, a sale notice was published on 08.03.2013 proposing to sell the agricultural property hypothecated in favour of the first respondent bank. The said proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are, therefore, questioned on two grounds as under: 1. That the first respondent bank is not a ‘public financial institution’ as defined under the SARFAESI Act nor is a ‘bank’ covered by the definition of the bank under the SARFAESI Act. 2. That, if for any reason, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are valid, the first respondent bank cannot proceed against the agricultural land, which is hypothecated, as there is a specific bar under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act from proceeding against the agricultural land. 3. 2. That, if for any reason, the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are valid, the first respondent bank cannot proceed against the agricultural land, which is hypothecated, as there is a specific bar under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act from proceeding against the agricultural land. 3. When we initially heard the writ petition on 16.04.2013, we had issued a limited notice as per the order extracted below: “The petitioners have raised a specific contention in the writ petition that the respondent – bank does not fall within the definition of ‘bank’ or ‘financial institution’ as defined under Sections 2(c) and (m) respectively, of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and on that ground they question the security measures taken by the respondents under Section 13(4) of the Act, as without jurisdiction. Since the said contention is required to be examined, we deem it appropriate to issue Notice before admission. We are, however, not inclined to stay any of the proceedings except issuance of sale certificate to the auction purchaser, pending further orders in this writ petition. The petitioners’ counsel is permitted to serve notice on the respondents and file proof of service. Post the writ petition immediately after service of notice.” 4. The first respondent bank has been served and has filed counter affidavit together with application seeking vacation of the interim order. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. So far as the first ground of attack is concerned, the counter affidavit specifically states that the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Company Affairs, Government of India) vide notification dated 14.06.1999, issued sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Companies Act, 1956, notifying the first respondent bank as ‘public financial institution’. Consequently, under the principal notification of the Government of India in S.O.1329 dated 08.05.1978, the respondent bank was included as 38th entry to the said notification. A copy of the Government of India’s Gazette is also annexed to the counter affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the said legal position and does not press the first contention, as above, in view of averments in the counter affidavit and the Gazette notification, referred to above. 8. A copy of the Government of India’s Gazette is also annexed to the counter affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the said legal position and does not press the first contention, as above, in view of averments in the counter affidavit and the Gazette notification, referred to above. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has laid great stress on the second contention by claiming that the agricultural land, which is hypothecated are excluded from any proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and has placed reliance upon decisions of the Supreme Court and other Courts, to which we will make reference at an appropriate place. 9. During the hearing of the matter, when the first point was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have suggested to the learned counsel to approach the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and to agitate all the questions before the said forum. Learned counsel, however, has vehemently contended that the petitioners do not have any such remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and strenuously contended that the writ petition is clearly maintainable by placing reliance upon Section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act and contended that the DRT is only empowered to examine as to whether secured creditor has taken security measures under Section 13(4) in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to him, therefore, the issue of jurisdiction of the first respondent bank to resort to provisions of the SARFAESI Act and its validity, cannot be subject matter of adjudication before DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 10. We find total fallacy in the said contention and in our view, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court by the writ petitioners is clearly an abuse of process of the Court apart from the fact that the writ petitioners are guilty of suppression of relevant facts from the notice of this Court and have clearly used the process of this Court to secure the interim order ex parte without disclosing the crucial and material facts, which have a bearing on the proceedings taken up by the first respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. We shall, therefore, deal with the above aspect at the first instance. 11. We shall, therefore, deal with the above aspect at the first instance. 11. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent bank that principal outstanding against the petitioners when converted into in terms of rupee was quantified at Rs.14,07,75,616.97 (Rupee Loan) based on the exchange value existing at the relevant point of time. The second petitioner secured the aforesaid Rupee Loan by executing the Rupee Loan Agreement and Modifying Deed of Hypothecation both dated 16.11.2002. The first petitioner, who stood as guarantor also executed a guarantee deed on 16.11.2002 by depositing title deeds relating to immovable properties, which was recorded in the memorandum on 12.04.2004. In addition to the initial loan, further working capital of Rs.2 crore was also extended to the second petitioner. When the second petitioner failed to repay the principal and interest in terms of the agreements, the first respondent bank issued notice dated 12.07.2005 and also invoked the guarantee under notice dated 30.11.2010. The first respondent bank, thereafter, invoked the proceedings of the SARFAESI Act and issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 01.09.2006. The first respondent bank further approached the District Magistrate under Section 14 the SARFAESI Act on 14.10.2006 and by order of the District Magistrate dated 22.11.2006, the first respondent bank has taken symbolic possession on 12.12.2006, when the second petitioner promised to settle the dues and requested the bank not to take physical possession of the assets and based on the assurance and undertaking, the bank did not take physical possession. It, however, appears that since the outstanding remained payable, the first respondent bank issued fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 07.06.2012 and secured physical possession, after issuing notice dated 08.01.2013 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 12. It, however, appears that since the outstanding remained payable, the first respondent bank issued fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 07.06.2012 and secured physical possession, after issuing notice dated 08.01.2013 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 12. A copy of the legal notice dated 01.09.2006 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, produced in the material papers, shows that the aggregate amount due and payable as on 01.09.2006 was Rs.20,68,01,835.60 together with future interest and the details of the loan and outstanding were set out in annexure I to the notice and brief particulars of hypothecation of assets were set out in annexure II to the notice, which are all described as follows: “The whole of the Borrower’s moveable fixed assets, both present and future, including: (i) moveable plan and machinery, equipment, appliances, furniture, vehicles, machinery spares and stores, tools and accessories, whether or not installed…” Further description of entire immovable properties given under part B of annexure II shows as under: “All that piece and parcel of land admeasuring in the aggregate 13 Acres and 59 cents situated at Edulapalem Village, within the Edulapalem Village Panchayat Limits in the Sub District of Prattipadu and District Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh as detailed below: Together with all buildings and structures thereon and all plant and machinery attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth.” 13. As mentioned above, the said notice was followed up to the stage of taking of symbolic possession by the first respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter, at the request of the second petitioner and on assurance and undertaking of the second petitioner to clear the outstanding, further physical possession was not taken. It appears, thereafter, a fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the bank on 07.06.2012, which refers to the filing of O.A.No.213 of 2012 by the bank under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short ‘the DRT Act’) without prejudice thereto, the proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act. Annexures to the notice showing the details of loan and the description of immovable property is similar to the annexure extracted above, except that for each item boundaries of each door number are given. Annexures to the notice showing the details of loan and the description of immovable property is similar to the annexure extracted above, except that for each item boundaries of each door number are given. The said notice was further followed by a possession notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on the ground that the borrower has failed to repay the amount of Rs.41,87,93,407.07/-, in response to the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 07.06.2012. 14. Further document annexed to the counter affidavit shows that under a panchanama dated 08.01.2013, the authorized officer of the bank has taken possession of the secured assets, which comprises of machinery and material, buildings and civil works etc. Further, the said properties were put to sale under public noticed dated 08.03.2013 by inviting tenders by specifically pointing out that out of the aggregate area to the extent of Ac.13.59 cents, an area of 0.23 acres has been acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and that successful tender for lots 1, 2 and 3 by one Polisetty Smasundaram was accepted being highest bid of Rs.14.25 crores and the said purchaser has already deposited 25% of the offer amount. 15. The counter affidavit with specific averments, as above, has not been contraverted by the petitioners and it is evident that the hypotheca is described as property bearing door numbers covered by buildings, plant and machinery, appears to be factory premises of the second petitioner. It is in that view the first respondent bank has stated in the counter affidavit that the entire hypothecated assets is surrounded by a compound wall and having structures therein and at no point of time, the land is utilized for agricultural purpose and in fact, used for commercial purpose and is, in fact, industrial land, as is shown in the schedule in the O.A. pending before DRT. 16. On facts, as above, therefore, we are satisfied that the secured assets against which the first respondent bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is not an agricultural land but appears to be industrial land where factory of the second petitioner existed, which had door numbers with buildings, structure, plant and machinery and surrounded by a compound wall. 16. On facts, as above, therefore, we are satisfied that the secured assets against which the first respondent bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is not an agricultural land but appears to be industrial land where factory of the second petitioner existed, which had door numbers with buildings, structure, plant and machinery and surrounded by a compound wall. Petitioners, though expressly aware of the same as early as in 2006 when the first notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the first respondent bank, have not raised their little finger, leave alone the contention that the hypothecated property is an agricultural land, as is sought to be now raised for the first time. Moreover, the petitioners have acquiesced in the proceedings taken up by the bank up to the stage of taking of symbolic possession and on the petitioners’ assurance and undertaking, that the bank has not taken further action. In our view, therefore, petitioners are estopped from raising such plea at this distance of time, after the first respondent bank has taken up fresh proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. 17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the first ground raised by the petitioners that the first respondent bank is not a ‘public financial institution’ or ‘bank’ as defined under Sections 2(m) and 2(c) of the SARFAESI Act respectively is neither bonafide nor justified, as no such contention was ever raised when the initial notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the first respondent bank as early as on 01.09.2006 apart from the fact that such contention is contrary to and is in ignorance of the notification of the Government of India, referred to above. The second ground that the security interest is created in agricultural land and thereby, there is a bar for taking any action under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act is also neither bonafide nor permissible as, admittedly, the hypothecation is covered by structures, buildings, plant and machinery enclosed by a compound wall having door numbers and it cannot be said to be an agricultural land. No such contention was raised by the petitioners in the first instance when the first respondent bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act initially on 01.09.2006. No such contention was raised by the petitioners in the first instance when the first respondent bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act initially on 01.09.2006. In our view, this writ petition is filed on the aforesaid grounds and the process of this Court is invoked only for securing an ex parte interim relief to stall the confirmation of sale, which has already taken place. 18. The writ petition is clearly misconceived on the aforesaid findings. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in NEEL MADHAV MINING PVT. LTD. v. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA ( 2005 (4) ALD 806 = 2005 (4) ALT 136 ). In the said decision also it was contended by the borrower that the security interest is in the nature of agricultural land but in that case, the proceedings were pending before the DRT, Visakhapatnam under the DRT Act in OA.No.101 of 2004 and the Division Bench, therefore, proceeded to hold that whether the land in question is an agricultural land or not is required to be decided on the basis of appropriate evidence to be laid and at the stage of interlocutory applications, this Court is not inclined to decide the said question. 20. A decision of the Supreme Court in N. SRINIVASA RAO v. SPECIAL COURT (2009) 12 SCC 544 ) is cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the contention that the jurisdiction of DRT is limited to the question of examining the legality of the security measures only and not applicability of the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 is only with respect to whether there has been an act of land grabbing as alleged and the Special Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question relating to acquisition of title by adverse possession in proceedings under Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, as the same falls under the domain of the civil Court. The aforesaid decision has, however, not been accepted by the later larger Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in V. LAXMINARASAMMA v. A. YADAIAH (2009) 12 SCC 544 ) and it has been specifically held that the Special Court has all the powers of a civil Court including power to act into the question of limitation with reference to adverse possession claimed by any party. 21. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. ASHOK SAW MILL (2009) 8 SCC 366 ) for the proposition that under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the DRT has jurisdiction only to decide with regard to the legality of the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act taken up by secured creditor. The said decision, to our mind, holds to the contrary and has quoted earlier decision of the Supreme Court in MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA [ (2004) 4 SCC 311 ] in para 32 of the judgment and held that DRT is empowered to not only examine the legality of proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act but all subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereof. 22. At this stage, we may notice Section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as under: “17(4). If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal declares the recourse taken by a secured creditor under sub-section (4) of section 13, is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the secured creditor shall be entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures specified under sub-section (4) of section 13 to recover his secured debt.” A reading of the above provision specifically stipulates that DRT is required to declare whether the recourse taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules, which in our view would include all questions including the question of jurisdiction as well as applicability of the SARFAESI Act. 23. A decision of the Bombay High Court in S.I.C.O.M. LTD. 23. A decision of the Bombay High Court in S.I.C.O.M. LTD. v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (2011) AIR (BOM) 32) is also relied upon for the proposition that power of the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is limited and he cannot decide the validity of the mortgage of the secured assets. We fail to see any relevance of the said decision on the facts and circumstances and questions involved in this case, as no action under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is questioned in the present writ petition. 24. Lastly a decision of the Kerala High Court in KARSHAKA SANGHATANA AYKYAVEDI v. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE (2010) 3 KLT 719 ) is pressed into service, but we find that the said decision relates to legality of the circulars issued by the bank with respect to agricultural land vis-à-vis action under the SARFAESI Act, which was already subject matter of an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. On the facts of this case, the said decision also does not assist the learned counsel for the petitioners. 25. We may also refer to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to entertaining the writ petition by this Court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. SATYAWATI TANDON (2010) 8 SCC 110 ). We have respectfully followed the said decision in numerous cases and did not entertain the writ petitions questioning the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by relegating the respective parties to DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, in the present case, since the jurisdiction of the secured creditor to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act was questioned on the two grounds, as above, we have examined the writ petition with reference thereto and in view of our conclusions recorded, as above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.