ORDER : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. The petitioner Pushpaben Paulbhai Pateliya is before this Court seeking to challenge the action under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('RDB Act' hereinafter) in the following factual background. 1.1. It is averred that the petitioner is the widow of one Paulbhai Dahyabhai Patelia. Her husband was a divorcee at the time of the marriage and already had two children from the earlier wife. 1.2 Dahyabhai Patelia, the father-in-law of the petitioner, had ancestral agricultural land bearing revenue survey no.339, ledger no.747 admeasuring hectare 0-44-51 in the sim of village Akhdol Taluka Nadiad, District Kheda. 1.3 After the death of Dahyabhai, name of his legal heirs Paulbhai Dahyabhai Patelia was entered into the revenue record in the village form no.7 and 12. Paulbhai also passed away intestate and therefore as his heirs, the present petitioner, Nayandeep and Snehalben have entered their names into the revenue record. The undivided 1/3rd share of each in the property was being enjoyed in the ancestral property. The deceased husband and the step son of the petitioner had approached erstwhile Corporation Bank (now merged in the Union Bank of India) with a request to grant cash credit facility and financial assistance for establishing the poultry farm. The bank sanctioned the term loan of Rs.23.55 lacs and cash credit limit of Rs.16.55 lacs to both of them for the purpose of establishment and development of poultry farm. Thus, the aggregate financial assistance of Rs.39.90 lacs three was advanced by the bank. 1.4 In addition to the mortgage of immovable property, created by both these, the charge was also created on the land in question. 1.5 The borrowers failed and neglected to pay the dues of the bank. The O.A. No.155 of 2017 was preferred before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad ('DRT' hereinafter) for recovering the sum of Rs.38,22,794.25 ps. together with interest upto 10.1.2017 against both Shri Nayanbhai Patelia and Shri Paulbhai Patelia. 1.6 Despite the due service, no one appeared and the Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 3.7.2018 allowed the O.A. and permitted the bank to recover the outstanding dues out of the charged and mortgaged properties including the property in question. The same has not been challenged further. 1.6 Despite the due service, no one appeared and the Tribunal, vide its judgment dated 3.7.2018 allowed the O.A. and permitted the bank to recover the outstanding dues out of the charged and mortgaged properties including the property in question. The same has not been challenged further. 1.7 The Recovery Officer initiated the recovery proceedings on the strength of the said judgment dated 3.7.2018 for recovery of the certified dues of the respondent. The Recovery Officer attached and put to the auction the immovable properties mortgaged by the borrowers for securing the repayment of the dues of the bank, in accordance with law. 1.8 The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India terming this as exceptional circumstance, as the respondent is attempting to take away the property of co-parceners who have not taken the loan from the respondent. 1.9 Again, it is averred by the petitioner that the DRT has no jurisdiction and without any application of mind the order has been passed by the DRT which is ab-initio void. The petitioner and other co-parceners have the right to live on the property which is now sought to be auctioned by the respondent. In absence of any efficacious remedy, as approaching any other forum will delay the proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers : “10 (A) THIS HON’BLE COURT be pleased to admit the present petition. (B) THIS HON’BLE COURT further be pleased to quash and set aside all the proceedings and or order passed by the DRT and further be pleased to quash and set aside the notice dated 21.02.2022 issued by the respondent. (C) THIS HON’BLE COURT further be pleased to quash and set aside all the proceedings carried out pursuant to notice dated 21.02.2022 issued by the respondent. (D) Pending admission, hearing and disposal of this petition, THIS HON’BLE COURT be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the notice dated 21.02.2022 and subsequent proceedings. (E) THIS HON’BLE COURT be pleased to pass such further and other orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 1.10 The affidavit-in-reply of the respondent-bank emphatically denies all allegations and has emphasized that by way of the present petition, the respondent has for the first time come to know of the death of Mr. (E) THIS HON’BLE COURT be pleased to pass such further and other orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 1.10 The affidavit-in-reply of the respondent-bank emphatically denies all allegations and has emphasized that by way of the present petition, the respondent has for the first time come to know of the death of Mr. Paul Patelia and the present petition is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings with an oblique motive. The alleged right claimed by the petitioner in the property in question on the basis of she being the legal heir of Mr. Paul Patelia would always be secondary and subservient to the first and exclusive charge of the respondent bank. There are no proceedings initiated under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' hereinafter) and hence the provision of Section 31 would have no application. The recovery measures are initiated under the provisions of the RDB Act which does not bar the proceedings against the agricultural land. The property in question was since mortgaged by the husband of the petitioner with the respondent, she will be liable to the respondent to the extent of estate of the deceased inherited by her. The respondent is entitled to sell and realize the immovable property in question for recovery of huge dues, no interference is desirable. 1.11 The auction scheduled on 12.4.2022 failed for want of bids and therefore, the present petition is infructuous. Let the efficacious remedy be resorted to as provided effectively. The statutory remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the RDB Act and Sections 20 and 30 shall need to be borne in mind. 2. We have heard extensively learned advocate Mr. Shashikant Parmar and learned advocate Mr. A.S. Panesar for the respondent bank. 3. They have along the line of their pleadings, forcefully argued that the case laws would substantiate their respective stands. On 16.11.2022 and thereafter on 15.12.2022, the Court had needed the details of the second marriage which was not on the record as the claim of the petitioner put forward is that of a second marriage with Mr. Paul Patelia claiming to be the heir of the ancestral property of Paulbhai at the stage when the property was mortgaged with the bank. The decree in respect of the outstanding dues had already been passed. 4. Paul Patelia claiming to be the heir of the ancestral property of Paulbhai at the stage when the property was mortgaged with the bank. The decree in respect of the outstanding dues had already been passed. 4. The additional affidavit by the petitioner pursuant to such order states that the marriage, since was a second marriage, no invitation card was printed, photographs were also not taken, marriage has not been registered with any authority. Hence, there is no direct proof of the marriage. However, the petitioner continued to reside with Mr.Paul and the name of the petitioner was deleted from the ration card in the office of Mamlatdar, at Khambhat and thereafter the name of the petitioner was entered into the ration card of the deceased Paulbhai where she has been shown as the wife, which is of 16.7.2013. The name of deceased Paulbhai is shown as the husband in the voter identity card issued by the Election Commission of India. The Aadhar card has also the name of the deceased Paulbhai as husband of the petitioner. She is illiterate and would not have any idea as to when exactly the marriage took place. 5. The loan was availed by her late husband and the status of the petitioner, as a wife was not in dispute. Therefore, it is urged that the petition should be allowed. 6. The written submissions have been tendered which may not be necessary to be dealt with, essentially repeating the averments set out in the petition. 7. Some of the decisions which has been sought to be relied upon in the written statements would be taken into consideration at an appropriate stage. 8. According to the petitioner, the DRT will not be in a position to decide the right and title of the parties. However, the petitioner is ready to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of declaration and partition of the land but in the meantime, the e-auction published by the respondent be set aside and on the strength of the ab initio void order the property, if is sold out, the petitioner shall become remedyless. However, the petitioner is ready to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of declaration and partition of the land but in the meantime, the e-auction published by the respondent be set aside and on the strength of the ab initio void order the property, if is sold out, the petitioner shall become remedyless. As long as there is a charge over the land, the bank cannot sell the property, the SARFAESI Act would protect the agricultural land and if there is any inconsistency between the two special Central Acts, the law later in point of time shall prevail. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Denil Limited V/s Sicom Limited reported in 2010 (3) GLR 2438 , that if right accrues under one Act is taken away by the operation of another Act, there is an obvious conflict in operation of these two Acts. 9. Having heard both the sides, there is a need to deal with the issue of maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others V/s M/s Commercial Steel Limited in Civil Appeal No.5121 of 2021, the Apex Court had allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the High Court as the case of the petitioner was not falling under any of the exceptions, which would permit preferring of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court said thus : “11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is : (a) a breach of fundamental rights; (b) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) an excess of jurisdiction; or (d) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. 12. In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it was not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.” 10. The other judgments cited by the petitioner, pertain to the effect of revenue entry and interest of the heirs, are not squarely applicable to the present case. 11. In the instant case, the emphasis on the part of the petitioner is of breach of fundamental rights as also the violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the land in question is the only land on which the petitioner survives, she has urged that this Court to intervene and direct the respondent not to auction the property. Non-availment of the opportunity is another ground which is sought to be emphasized. 12. We notice that although summons and notice had been duly served on the petitioner, at no stage she had appeared before the Tribunal. There has been no challenge to the judgment rendered by the Tribunal pursuant to which the Recovery Officer has initiated the actions. 13. Be that as it may, presently on the ground that the survival of the petitioner depends on the land in question necessitated her to approach this Court, particularly, in wake of the possible auction of the property till the petitioner actually establishes her right qua the property in question. 14. Even if we stretch that issue of her right and her dependence on the land in question, she has alternative and efficacious remedy available with her. The challenge by way of an appeal to the decision of the Tribunal also was feasible for her to take redressal of. However, the same has not been done till date. 14. Even if we stretch that issue of her right and her dependence on the land in question, she has alternative and efficacious remedy available with her. The challenge by way of an appeal to the decision of the Tribunal also was feasible for her to take redressal of. However, the same has not been done till date. 14.1 For now, what is being apprehended is the auction of the property in question for which she can always approach the Recovery Officer under Rule 11 of the RDB Rules and Sections 20 and 30 of the RDB Act would also come to her rescue as an alternative and proper remedy. 14.2 We are given to understand by learned advocate Mr. Panesar that the next procedure of auction has not been decided as at. In that view of the matter, when the very basic and fundamental question about whether the petitioner is a legal heir of one of the borrowers or not, deserves to be adjudicated, more particularly, in wake of serious challenge and in absence of any photograph, registration of marriage or any other proof of marriage, all these disputed questions of facts are needed to be determined by the competent Court / concerned Authority which can be approached by the petitioner for the purpose of lis which has been raised before this Court. 15. Without entering into the merits of the matter, essentially the issues raised since are based on the facts predominantly which shall need to be determined in accordance with law and therefore, this Court has chosen not to entertain this petition. This disposal will not, on merit, affect the right of either side in raising the challenge before an appropriate authority which shall adjudicate in accordance with law, bearing in mind all aspects and not being influenced in any manner by the disposal of this petition.