HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8730/2025 1. Late Mintu Ram Jat S/o Ram Singh Jat, Through His Legal Heirs 1.1. Sapna Choudhary, Aged About 45 Years, W/o Late Sh. Mintu Ram 1.2. Himani Choudhary D/o Late Sh. Mintu Ram, Aged About 15 Years, Through Natural Guardian Sapna Choudhary 1.3. Bhanu Pratap S/o Late Sh. Mintu Ram, Aged About 12 Years, Through Natural Guardian Sapna Choudhary R/o Village-Kharkhari, Ward No. 2, Kamla Nagar, Post Office- Ramsinghpura, Tehsil-Kotputli, Kotputli Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The District Collector, Kotputli, Behror, Jaipur 2. The Nanital Bank Ltd., Branch-Kotputli, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Branch Manager 3. Rajesh Yadav, S/o Roopchand Yadav, R/o Ward No. 10, Adarsh Nagar, Saini Sabha Ke Pass, Tehsil-Kotputli, Kotputli, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lovekush Samar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/09/2025 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the District Collector, Kotputli-Behror by which the application submitted by the respondent No.2-Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act (2 of 2) [CW-8730/2025] of 2002”) has been allowed and directions have been issued for taking possession of the subject premises from the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of the petitioner No.1 borrowed certain amount from the respondent-Bank, but he died and thereafter the aforesaid proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner No.1 is a widow lady and now the respondents are bent upon to take forceful possession of the subject premises, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Without going into the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the order passed by the District Magistrate is appellable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) under the provisions of the Act of 2002. Without availing the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners, they have approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition bypassing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 5. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy available to the petitioners under the Act of 2002. 6. In case, appropriate application is submitted before the Tribunal, the same would be decided by the Tribunal expeditiously as early as possible ignoring the period of limitation. 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/36