JUDGMENT : 1. This is an utterly unmeritorious appeal. True to Indian style, the appellants have taken money from the bank and, like the devil, cite the scriptures when the time for repayment arrives. 2. The appellants candidly admit that they have used a land described as "sali" in the State's revenue records as commercial land by paying revenue at commercial rates therefor. However, they contend that since the land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records, it will fall within the exemption under Section 31 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. The writ petition was instituted challenging a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the said Act. It is now judicially recognised that there is hardly a remedy available, in view of the scheme of the said Act of 2002, to a noticee in receipt of such notice qua the notice. Indeed, the proposed steps to be taken by the bank cannot be interdicted at such stage. The usual rules for challenging a show-cause notice would apply: the notice may only be assailed on the ground that it is without jurisdiction or it must be demonstrated that the notice is ex facie absurd. 4. There is no dispute in this case as to the constituent-banker relationship between the first appellant and the respondent bank. The notice issued on February 22, 2010 was sought to be assailed on the ground that a part of the notice referred to an immovable property that was an agricultural land and was, thus, beyond the pale of the said Act of 2002 by virtue of Section 31 thereof. For nearly seven years, the appellants have taken advantage of the law's delays and kept the bank at bay. Fortunately, the game was seen through by the Single Bench and it was observed that since the land was being used for a commercial purpose, the land had to be seen as a commercial land and not regarded as an agricultural land merely because it continued to be recorded as such in the revenue records. 5. The order impugned does not call for any interference. The bank must be allowed to proceed against its securities in accordance with law. 5. The order impugned does not call for any interference. The bank must be allowed to proceed against its securities in accordance with law. It is only observed that in the event the bank takes steps under Section 13(4) of the Act in respect of the land recorded as agricultural land and the appellants challenge the same before any appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal, nothing in the order impugned will preclude the appellants herein from urging the grounds available to them and the DRT will be authorised to look into the facts and the law to decide the matter before it. 6. FMA 498 of 2017 and CAN 1845 of 2017 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.