Article 226 writs remain maintainable where SARFAESI applicability is challenged and coffee plantation land is not agricultural land.

Writ petitions challenging SARFAESI action were maintainable under Article 226 because the objection went to the statute's very applicability and raised a jurisdictional issue that could be examined despite an alternate remedy. On the substantive question, coffee plantation land was held not to fall within "agricultural land" for the purposes of the SARFAESI exclusion, since Karnataka land laws treat plantation land as a distinct category and the land's use as a plantation at the time of the security interest supported that construction. The secured creditor's enforcement measures were therefore not barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 despite the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (ii) Whether coffee plantation land falls within the expression "agricultural land" under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 despite the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge goes to the very applicability of the statute and the exercise of power is alleged to be without jurisdiction. The question whether the secured asset was excluded from the SARFAESI regime under Section 31(i) required a threshold determination of statutory applicability, and the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A reinforced the need to examine the jurisdictional objection first.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether coffee plantation land falls within the expression "agricultural land" under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: The expression "agricultural land" had to be construed contextually with reference to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Those enactments separately identify plantation crops, including coffee, and provide a distinct regime for plantation lands. Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 exempts plantations from the restrictions applicable to agricultural land, and the statutory scheme shows that plantation land is treated differently from ordinary agricultural land for the purpose of enforcement of security interests. The nature of the land and its use as plantation land on the date of creation of security interest also supported this interpretation.

Conclusion: Coffee plantation land does not fall within the expression "agricultural land" under Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the secured creditor's measures were not barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the substantive challenge to SARFAESI action against coffee plantation lands, though the writ jurisdiction objection was rejected and the matters were disposed of without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, plantation land used for coffee and other identified plantation crops is to be treated as a distinct category under the Karnataka land laws and is not covered by the statutory exclusion for "agricultural land".

---