JUDGMENT P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. - Heard Shri. S.K.V. Chalapathi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Smt.Divya Purandar, learned Advocate for the respondent - Bank. 2. This petition is presented with a prayer inter alia to quash Sale notice dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure-S) issued by the Union Bank of India, fixing the date of auction as November 18, 2020 to sell the petition schedule properties to recover the money due from petitioners to the Bank. 3. Shri. Chalapathy's principal contention is, properties in question are 'agricultural lands' and therefore, as per Section 31(i) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) do not apply to petitioners' case. 4. Ms. Divya Purandar for the Bank submitted that in all three Coffee Estates have been mortgaged to the Bank. The Coffee Estate named 'Watekhan Estate' is jointly owned by the first petitioner and his brother Shri. S.Dinakar Rao. The other two, namely 'Yellikodige Estate' and 'Vijayadevan Estate' are owned by partnership firms of which the first petitioner and his brother Shri. S. Dinakar Rao are partners. The outstanding debt recoverable is about Rs.21 crores. The Bank has initiated recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act by taking possession of the mortgaged properties. Petitioners have challenged the same in S.A. No.542/2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT' for short) by urging the very same contentions urged in this writ petition. The DRT has not passed any interim order. The next date of hearing is December 16, 2020. After taking possession, the Bank has brought the properties for sale. Shri.Dinakar Rao, who is one of the co-owners and partners; and a practicing Advocate has written to the Bank as back as on June 27, 2019 stating that his brother Shri. Ramesh Rao (first petitioner) has 'stacked up' the income received from three Estates and deliberately withholding repayment of loan; and refusing to pay the Bank. He has also suggested in his letter that if first petitioner does not pay the loan amount, Bank may proceed against a portion of 'Watekhan Estate' under SARFAESI Act for the best price. With these submissions, learned Advocate for the Bank prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 6. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the properties brought to auction are agricultural properties. With these submissions, learned Advocate for the Bank prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 6. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the properties brought to auction are agricultural properties. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon: Indian Bank and others Vs. K.Pappireddiyar and others, (2018) AIR SC 3540 (paragraph No.8) ITC Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. and others, (2018) 15 SCC 99 (paragraphs No. 35 and 36) Mohammed Basheer. K.P. Vs. Deputy General Manager and others,2010 2 KarLJ 225 (paragraph No.6 & 7) 7. In the case of Pappireddiyar, it is held that whether land is agricultural in nature has to be determined on the totality of facts and circumstances including the nature and character of the land and the use to which it is put. Having so held, the Apex Court remitted the matter to the High Court. 8. In the case of ITC Limited, it was decided on facts of that case by recording in paragraph No.42 that having regard to the character of the land and the purpose for which it was set apart, it was not an agricultural land. 9. With regard to Mohammed Basheer's case, Ms. Divya Purandar cited a Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Remani Thomas Vs. Assistant General Manager and Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda4 and submitted that it has been held that the decision in Mohammed Basheer's case is not decisive. 10. Thus, the authorities cited by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner do not lend any support to petitioners' case. 11. Ms.Divya Purandara also relied upon the following authorities: United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon and others,2016 SCCOnline(KER) 12555 Authorized Officer Vs. State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C, (2010) 8 SCC 110 ICICI Bank Limited and others Vs. Umakanta Mohapatra and others, (2018) 3 SCC 85 M/s. SSJV Projects Pvt. Ltd., and others Vs. Canara Bank, (2019) 13 SCC 497 12. In the case of Satyawati Tandon, it is held that when a particular Legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of grievance, High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Umakanta Mohapatra and others, (2018) 3 SCC 85 M/s. SSJV Projects Pvt. Ltd., and others Vs. Canara Bank, (2019) 13 SCC 497 12. In the case of Satyawati Tandon, it is held that when a particular Legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of grievance, High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the case of K.C.Mathew, reaffirming the principle in Sathyawati Tandon, the Apex Court has held that it is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party when the law stands well settled. In financial matters, grant of ex parte interim orders can have deleterious effect. Loans from Financial Institution are granted by public money generated at tax payers' expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan but retains its character of public money given in the fiduciary capacity. 14. In the case of ICICI Bank Ltd., referring to K.C. Mathew's case, the Apex Court has deprecated the practice by High Courts to continue to entertain matters which arise under SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court has noted the observations made in paragraph No.32 of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd., Vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is held that when a position in law is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement, it would amount to judicial impropriety to ignore the settled decisions and to pass judicial orders which are contrary to the settled legal position. 15. In the case of SSJV projects, it is held that when a contention has been raised and if it is pending in appeal, the question of urging the same plea under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted. 16. On facts, one of the borrowers, Shri. S.Dinakar Rao, has stated in his letter produced by the Bank that his brother Ramesh Rao, who is the first petitioner in this petition has been deliberately withholding repayments of loan and refusing to pay to the Bank. Petitioners have already approached the DRT by filing S.A. No.542/2019. It is the specific case of respondent Bank that petitioners have urged the very same grounds urged in this writ petition, before the DRT. 17. Petitioners have already approached the DRT by filing S.A. No.542/2019. It is the specific case of respondent Bank that petitioners have urged the very same grounds urged in this writ petition, before the DRT. 17. It is also the specific case of the Bank that petitioners have been using the Estates for the purpose of Home stay, guest house etc. This contention was sought to be refuted by the learned Senior Advocate by producing Google maps. It was urged that a very small portion of the Estates measuring about 348 acres was being used for the purpose of Home stay and it cannot alter the nature of the land which is primarily agricultural land. However, no finding can be recorded based on the assertions and photographs in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of fact. 18. Admittedly, Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Petitioners' remedy lies in an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In view of this settled position, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.