1 2025:CGHC:2689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 282 of 2025 1 - Grihum Housing Finance Limited Earlier Known As Poonawala Housing Finance Limited A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, Having Registered OfÏce At 24, Park Street, Kolkata, 700016 Branch OfÏce At First Floor, Indira Tower, Vinoba Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Authorised Signatory R. Maneesh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Naib Tehsildar, Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 3 - Pratapchandra Saraf S/o Balbhadra Prasad Saraf R/o House No. 85, Netaji Marg, Dist. Janjgir Champa C.G. 495671 Currently Residing At Plot No. 52, Nazul Sheet No. 31, Ward No. 20 Barpali Ward Dist. Janjgir Champa Chattisgarh 495668 4 - Priti Saraf D/o Prabhunath Saraf R/o House No. 85, Station Marg Para, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 5 - Rajiv Kumar Saraf S/o Prakashchandra Saraf House No. 85, Station Marg Para, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 6 - M/s Pratap Electronics Barpali Main Road, Champa, Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) 495671 Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.17 18:44:43 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions towards the District Magistrate to restore the possession of the secured creditor over the property in question by exercising the power conferred under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate has assisted in getting the possession of the property in question from respondent No. 4 to 6 and the possession was given to the petitioner. However, after getting the said possession, the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 6 by breaking lock of the house, forcefully taken possession of the property in question back, for which the petitioner submitted the application to the Tahsildar vide Annexure-P/7 on 14/10/2024 and subsequently preferred this writ petition seeking direction to the District Magistrate to restore the possession of the property in question handed over in the month of September, 2024. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the property has been forcefully again taken back by respondent No. 3 to 6, but the petitioner has not lodged any report before the police station or intimated the same to the District Collector about the said action of 3 the above respondents. Hence, the directions which is being sought by the petitioner could not be granted. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. It appears from the facts that the possession of the property in question has been handed over to the petitioner company from respondent No. 3 to 6, however, again on 25/09/2024, respondent No. 3 to 6 forcefully taken possession of the property in question. It is also clear that the petitioner has not lodged any report or has intimated the District Magistrate about the said action of the respondents. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach before the appropriate authority including police about the illegal action of the said respondents. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul