JUDGMENT : G.K. Vyas, J. In this special appeal filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 25th of January 2018 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.1105/2018 is under challenge, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2002'). 2. As per brief facts of the case are that the appellant preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge in which notice dated 17.01.2017 (Annex.7) and auction notice dated 15.01.2018 and subsequently proceedings initiated by the respondent ICICI Bank was challenged. 3. In the writ petition, a specific plea was taken by the writ-petitioner that for the land in question a Patta was issued in 15.01.1937 in the name of Maharaja Vijay Singh and his son Sh. Ranbahadur Singh. According to petitioner, the parcel of said land was sub-divided on 17.04.1956 into various plots and a lay out plan was prepared, which was got sanctioned from the then Municipal Board, Jodhpur. At present it is known as 'Laxmi Nagar'. 4. It was pleaded in the writ petition that Sh. Ranbahadur Singh decided to sell the plots, therefore, he executed a power of attorney on 11.07.1959 whereby Sh. Sajjan Ram was authorized to sell the plots approved under the layout play on his behalf. As per facts stated by the appellant, one of plot bearing Plot No.260 measuring 50' x 98' was sold to three brothers jointly, namely, Sh. Bhimraj Bhandari (father of the petitioner), Sh. Inder Raj Bhandari and Sh. Ganpat Raj Bhandari through a registered sale-deed dated 19.01.1959. The power of attorney sold various other plots also but very interestingly, due to non-availability of owners of the plot in question, as well as owing to the encroachment done on the plot in question, the plot was re-sold by Sh. Virendra Singh S/o Ranbahadur Singh through his power of attorney holder Mr. Upendra Singh to Sh. Dwarka Prasad Taparia and Smt. Rameshwari Devi Taparia vide sale-deed dated 23.09.2005. Virendra Singh S/o Ranbahadur Singh through his power of attorney holder Mr. Upendra Singh to Sh. Dwarka Prasad Taparia and Smt. Rameshwari Devi Taparia vide sale-deed dated 23.09.2005. The petitioner further pleaded that one part of the said plot was fraudulently sold by Smt. Rameshwari Devi to one Ashok Goliya, to whom neither the petitioner is knowing nor he was aware about the fraudulent sale. 5. Suddenly, the officers of the ICICI Bank visited the plot in question in one fine morning and pasted a notice on 17.01.2017 issued by the Authorized Officer under the Act of 2002 showing the possession of the land, was being taken by the respondent Bank. The appellant/writ-petitioner urged before the learned Single Judge that the plot in question as purchased by his ancestors in the year 1959 by way of registered sale-deed, however, the same was fraudulently sold by the power of attorney holder (Mr. Upendra Singh) of Sh. Virendra Singh S/o Ranbahadur Singh to Sh. Dwarka Prasad Taparia and Smt. Rameshwari Devi Taparia into two parts and further Smt. Rameshwari Devi sold part of land to one Ashok Golia, who took loan from ICICI Bank while mortgaging the plot in question for his not making repayment of the loan. 6. As per facts for not making repayment of loan by Ashok Golia, and others proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Bank under the Act of 2002 for auction because it was mortgaged with the Bank, but said plot was already purchased by the appellant's father from the power attorney holder of original owner Sh. Ranbahadur Singh Ji, therefore, there was no question to resell the said plot by his son, Sh. Virendra Singh after number of years but it has been done illegally, therefore, initiation of proceedings under the Act of 2012 by the respondent ICICI Bank is illegal, as the appellant is the actual owner of the property. 7. Learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative and statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 and further writ petition against the auction notice is not maintainable. Learned Single Judge relied upon number of judgments including judgment in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Learned Single Judge relied upon number of judgments including judgment in the case of Union Bank of India Vs. Styawati Tondon & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110 , and other judgment of Division bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Master Kshitij Goyal (Minor) & Ors. Vs. State Bank of Patiyala, (2014) 2 Diwani Nirnay Journal 451 and in the case of Rajendra Wadhwa Vs. PNB & Ors. and held that there is alternative and statutory remedy of appeal is available to appellant u/s 17 of the Act of 2002. 8. In this special appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner submits that in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Atla Sidda Reddy Vs. Busi Subba Reddy & Ors., 2010 Diwani Nirnay Journal(SC) 527, the registered sale prior in time will prevail over the subsequent registered sale-deed for the same property and no right or title accrue on the basis of such registered sale-deed, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered in the matter because the plot in question which is under auction for nonpayment of loan by private respondents, the whole proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank deserves to be quashed. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Atla Sidda Reddy Vs. Busi Subba Reddy & Ors., admittedly aforesaid judgment is not upon the issue of alternative remedy, therefore, not applicable in the present appeal. In our opinion, if the appellant/writ-petitioner is having any right over the plot in question, which has subsequently been sold, then he is required to lay a challenge to the said sale-deed or invoke remedy available under the Act of 2002. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of maintainability because remedy of appeal is provided under the Act of 2002. 10. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal, hence the same is hereby dismissed.