Andhra HC (PreTelangana) Model Financial Corporation, A Company ... vs Indian Bank, Armb Rep. By Its Chief ... on 20 December, 2007 ORDER P.S. Narayana, J. 1. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 26.02.2007 and also granted interim stay, in W.P.M.P.No.4716 of 2007, on that day. 2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice, dated 23.01.2007, under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and consequently to direct the respondents not to take any further action pursuant to the said impugned notice dated 23.01.2007. 3. W.V.M.P.No.2755 of 2007 is filed to vacate the interim order passed in W.P.M.P.No.4716 of 2007 on 26.02.2007. A reply affidavit also had been filed. 4. Sri R.Raghunandan, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners, had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) and placed strong reliance on Section 31 (i) of the Act and would maintain that agricultural lands would not fall within the purview of the Act and, hence, the respondents cannot further proceed with the impugned action. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions in relation to the factual controversies involved in the matter. 5. On the contrary, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel representing the respondents, had taken this Court through the contents of the counteraffidavit and would maintain that the land involved is not an agricultural land at all and at any rate the land is not being used for agricultural purpose and, even otherwise, the petitioners are having an effective alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act at the appropriate stage and, hence, viewed from any angle, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. 6. The Director and authorized signatory of the 1st petitioner company had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is averred that 1st petitioner company had availed financial assistance from M/s Indian Bank, Putlibowli Branch, Hyderabad on 05.01.1996 and subsequently the said loan was merged with Hyderabad main branch and transferred to the 1st respondent, on the ground that the account had become irregular. It is further stated that an application, being O.A.No.247 of 2003, was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the same is still pending and various measures including offers of settlement to the 1st respondent bank and other consortium banks are still being carried out. It is also further stated that, while the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent had issued a notice, dated 23.01.2007, under Section 13 (2) of the Act, calling upon the petitioners and Ors. , who were shown as guarantors, to come forward and clear the entire due of Rs.2,90,02,301/ and stating that, on failure, the respondents would exercise their powers under Section 13 and other provisions of the Act for sale of the land shown in the schedule, on the ground that the said land was mortgaged to the 1st respondent bank and, therefore, it would be a secured assert, which can be sold under the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that the impugned notice, dated 23.01.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent, under Section 13 (2) of the Act, is without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the Act as well as Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Further, it is stated that the land shown in the schedule given in the impugned notice is 8 acres 17 guntas of agricultural land situated at Kisnapur village, Patancheru Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. It is also stated that mortgage of the property was done by way of deposit of title deeds which would clearly show that the land described in the document is agricultural land. Further, Section 31 (i) of the Act excludes any security interest created on agricultural land from the provisions of the Act and, once agricultural land is excluded from the provisions of the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply in any manner and consequently the issuance of impugned notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act is without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. It is also further stated that, as can be seen from the impugned notice itself, an application had been filed for the very same liability before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, vide O.A.No.247 of 2003, and the same is pending. The first proviso to Section 19 (1) of the Recovery o