JUDGMENT : In order to answer the principal argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whether the loan amount, which was sanctioned by the Secured Creditor, could at all be recovered as an arrears of land revenue. Few factual backdrop of the case are required to be dealt with. 2. It is not in controversy, that the petitioners were sanctioned with the loan, to which some of the co-petitioners stood as a guarantor. The aforesaid loan stood sanctioned on 30th March 2009. The petitioners contends that they had been consistently depositing the amount, but admittedly certain default was committed, and as a consequence thereto on 31st March 2017, the account was declared as NPA. This order of declaration of account as NPA, has not been ever put to challenge. Rather when the notices under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was issued on 17th April 2017 under the Act of 2002, raising a demand of Rs.72,42,166.29/- admittedly the petitioner has preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition no.1370 of 2017, which was dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 12th June 2017, in the light of the fact that the petitioners had a remedy available with them to prefer an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before Debt Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners didn’t invoked any proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and as a consequence to it, the notices under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, was published on 26th September 2017. 3. Consequent to it, a sale proclamation was published in the daily newspapers, for the purposes of selling the mortgaged property, as well as the plant and machinery, by publication made on 6th June 2018, and consequent to it, E-auction sale was scheduled to be conducted on 9th July 2018. But since the purchasers were not made available, for the building which was mortgaged for the loan advances, a fresh publication was issued on 27th December 2019, in newspaper “Jansatta” for the purposes of holding E auctioning of the mortgaged land and building of the factory, and at that point of time the total amount which was shown as due to be paid was valued as Rs.68,65,188.29. 4. 4. The property was auctioned on 27th January 2020, but however, later on certain dispute arose which was carried to the civil court, but later on it was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, in view of the provisions contained under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which bars filing of suit before Civil Court. Since despite of the sale having been made, still there were certain balance which were still left outstanding dues, which were yet to be recovered, hence a recovery citation dated 26th May 2022, has been issued against the petitioners, which has been put to challenge before this Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioners have extended their argument in support of their contentions from the following perspective:- 1. That the loan amount cannot be recovered as an arrears of land revenue, by invoking the provisions contained under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. If there was any outstanding due, which was yet to be paid even after the auction sale which was held, the recourse available to the Secured Creditor would have been under the provisions contained under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. That the proceedings of the recovery would be barred by Section 3 of the UP Public Money Recovery of Dues Act 1972. 6. The questions, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertaining to the resorting to the proceedings for recovery under the Zamindari Abolition Act, or under the provisions of the Public Money Recovery of Dues Act 1972, has been answered by the respondent counsel to the contrary, to the arguments of petitioner, in view of the provisions contained under section 37 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which is extracted hereunder:- “37. Application of other laws not barred.—The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondent secured creditor submits, that the applicability of the proceedings for recovery of the defaulted amount, under any other provisions of law, apart from the proceedings which are contemplated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has been still left open to be resorted to in view of the latitude extended by the provisions contained under section 37 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which is extracted above. 8. On the simplicitor reading of section 37 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, it specifically provides that the secured creditor, will not be barred under any law from resorting to the proceedings for recovery of the amount, apart from the statutes which had been mentioned in section 37 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by resorting to the procedures, “any other law for the time being enforced”. Its not the case of the petitioners that in either of the circumstances whether the recovery under the Zamindari Abolition Act or under the Public Money Recovery of Dues Act 1972, was not invoked and as such the Legislature in its wisdom while incorporating section 37, where any other procedure for recovery under any other law was still saved to be applied, the argument that it cannot be recovered as an arrears of land revenue is not sustainable, and is not accepted by this Court. 9. The second argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regards to the implications provided under section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 9. The second argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regards to the implications provided under section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Section 13(10) of the Act is extracted hereunder:- “(10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower.” 10. It rather provides that where any defaulted amount is left due to be recovered after resorting to the proceedings under section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the secured creditor "may” file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, having jurisdiction over the matter or in any manner as may be prescribed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, before the competent court, as the case may be, for the recovery of the balance amount. 11. 11. On the concise and a composite meaning of section 13 (10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, this Court is of the view that section 13 (10) of the act, is only directory in nature and not mandatory, that the secured creditor is bound to approach to Debt Recovery Tribunal, for recovering the balance amount due to be paid because as per the provisions contained under section 13 (10) of the Act, itself, the statute has left it open for the secured creditor to approach before the competent court for recovery of the balance amount, this use of terminology contained under section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, giving the liberty to the secured creditor, to approach the “competent court” will be wide enough to enable the respondents to resort to the proceedings which has been left open otherwise to be resorted under section 37 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by recovering the amount under the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act or under the provisions of section 3 of the UP Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972, for recovering the amount as an arrears of land revenue because the applicability of the aforesaid Acts, are not ousted from being applied to recover the balance amount under the special statute apart from the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 12. 12. Be that as it may, owing to the aforesaid reasons, coupled with the fact that the writ petitioners have approached the writ courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for invoking its equitable jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that equity is only available to those litigants, who after their first approaching to the court procuring an order dated 12th June 2017, reserving their rights to approach under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has waived of their right to resort to Section 17 of the Act, he would be estopped to raise a plea that the because of the alleged bar under section 13 (10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the amount cannot be recovered as an arrears of land revenue. 13. In that view of the matter, and for the reasons assigned above, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.