JUDGMENT : N.Nagaresh, J. The petitioner, who is Class A Contractor approved by the Government of Kerala, has filed this OP(DRT) seeking to set aside Ext.P2 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The petitioner also seeks to declare that the respondent cannot proceed with Ext.P3 notice, since the properties are agricultural in nature. 2. The petitioner obtained KCC Loan of Rs. 10 lakhs and a Housing Loan of Rs. 30 lakhs. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner's contract works suffered. Huge amounts are due to the petitioner from the Public Works Department. 3. While so, the Bank invoked Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. When the Bank issued possession notice, the petitioner filed SA No.203/2023 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. Before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioner contended that the property being proceeded against is agricultural in nature and hence the property cannot be taken possession of or sold invoking the Act, 2002. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, however, dismissed the SA as per Ext.P2 order. 4. Subsequently, when the Bank obtained an order from Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court issued Ext.P3 notice of dispossession. The petitioner states that the notice of dispossession issued by the Advocate Commissioner is highly illegal, harsh and unsustainable. The action of the respondents without following statutory requirements under the Act, 2002 is arbitrary and illegal. 5. The petitioner stated that huge amount was due to the petitioner from the governmental agencies including PWD and KWA. If a breathing time is given to the petitioner, the petitioner will be able to clear the entire liability. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent. 7. Ext.P2 order in SA No.203/2023 is under challenge in this OP(DRT). The SA was filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the secured assets of the petitioner fall under the category of agricultural property as defined under Section 31(i) of the Act, 2002 and to direct the respondents to grant time for payment of the due amount. 8. The Tribunal found that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving that the secured assets are agricultural properties at the time of entering into the agreement. 8. The Tribunal found that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving that the secured assets are agricultural properties at the time of entering into the agreement. The Tribunal further noted that the petitioner did not send any objection/representation to the demand notice dated 19.05.2022 stating that secured assets are agricultural properties. The petitioner has not produced any material before the Tribunal to show that the secured assets were agricultural properties. 9. The petitioner is not disputing his liability. The petitioner's case is that the property proceeded against by the Bank is agricultural property which cannot be taken over or sold by the Bank under the Act, 2002. The Tribunal considered the above aspects and came to a conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the secured asset is agricultural property as on the date of mortgage. I find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. 10. Apart from the afore facts, I find that Ext.P2 is a final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in SA No.203/2023 filed by the petitioner. Section 18 of the Act, 2002 provides for effective appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. When an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court would not be justified in interfering with a final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, on re-appreciation of facts. In the circumstances, I find that the OP(DRT) is without any force or merits. The OP(DRT) is therefore dismissed.