1 2025:CGHC:45317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5649 of 2024 1 - Jana Small Finance Bank, A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, Having Registered Office At - Fairway Ground, First Floor, Survey No. 10/1, 11/2 And 12/2 B, Off Domlur Koramangala, Inner Ring Road, Next To Egl Business Park, Challaghatta, Bangalore, 560071 And Branch Office At Krishna Complex, Opp. Auribindo Netralaya, Main Road, Sadar Bazaar, Raipur, 492001. Through- Authorized Signatory Mr. Mahendra Pralhad Brahmane S/o Pralhad Brahmane. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Tehsildar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - M/s Shree Gurukripa Merchant, Through Its Proprietor Sandeep Kumar Gowani, Situated Ag Gol Bazar, Opp. Hanumna Mandir, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Sandeep Kumar Gowani S/o Rajkumar Gowani, Proprietor M/s Shree Gurukripa Merchant R/obunglow No. 84, Aishwaya Emprire, Near St. Xavier School, Labhandi Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Mrs. Kanak Gowani W/o Sandeep Kumar Gowani, R/o Bungalow No. 2 84, Aishwaya Empire, Near St. Xavier School, Labhandi Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Mrs. Kashish Gowani W/o Sunil Gowani, R/o Bunglow No. 84, Aishwaya Empire, Near St. Xavier School, Labhandi Road, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Mrs. Asha Mundra W/o Radheyshyam Mundra, R/o House No. 507, Suryoday Apartment, Opp. Patidar Bhawan, Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy.GA For Respondent No.6 : Shri Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/09/2025 The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being preferred seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Ditrict Raipur to assist the petitioner company int akin the possession of the property mortgaged by the respondent No. 2 to 5 from the petitioner in accordance with the order passed by the CJM, Raipur vide order dated 14.03.2024 in the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 14 of the Sarfaesi Act, 2002. The petitioner therefore has sought for the following reliefs: 10.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order directing the respondent No.1 to execute the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur by restituting the possession of the secured asset to 3 the petitioner. 10.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ, order and it may be declared that the Respondent No.2 to 5 have violated the mandate of Securitization Act. 10.3. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a small finance bank which is authorized by the Reserved Bank fo India and is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and represented through its authorized Signatory. Respondent No.1 is the Tahsildar of District Raipur. The respondents No. 2 to 5 had approached the petitioner for grant of loan and subsequently executed loan agreement dated 22.04.2022 bearing loan amount of Rs. Rs. 1,00,00,000/- by depositing the title deeds of heir property situated at Plot NO. 84 admeasuring 1324.12 sq. ft. Including construction at Khasra No. 147/4 diverted Khasra No. 147/9 Aishwarya Empire, Mauja Labhandi, Maharshi Valmiki Ward, Ward No. 28, PHN 113/44, New 65 RNM Raipur-2 Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). The respondent No.6 was interested in buying the property mortgaged by the respondents No.2 to 5 with the petitioner and a sale confirmation letter dated 18.09.2023 has been issued by the petitioner in favor of respondent No.6. As mentioned in the said loan agreement for the payment of the facilities availed by the respondent No.2 to 5, it was supposed to pay the EMI and since they have continuously failed to pay the EMI, the petitioner was 4 constrained to declare the loan amount of respondent No. 2 to 5 as a nor perming asset on 01.01.2023 as per terms of the Sarfaesi Act. Subsequently, the petitioner served a demand notice in terms of Section 13920 of the said Act dated 12.01.2023 and even after service and publication of the demand notice in the newspaper neither any reply was given nor any amount as mentioned in the said demand notice was paid by the respondent No. 2 to 5. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No. 2 to 5, the petitioner had preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur to get the physical possession of the properties mortgaged by the respondent No.2 to 5 and the aforesaid application was allowed vide order dated 14.03.2024 and by way of the said order, respondent No.1 had assisted the petitioner in taking the physical possession of the properties mortgaged by the respondent No.2 to 5 and the sale confirmation letter in respect of the property mortgaged by the respondent No. 2 to 5 ha been issued in favour respondent No.6 vide letter dated 18.09.2023. The physical possession of the property was mortgaged by the respondent NO. 2 to 5 which was handed over to the petitioner on 21.06.2024. On 01.08.2025, the petitioner company had come to know that the respondent No.5 had broke the lock put by the petitioner company and had forcefully taken the possession of the property back. On 02.08.2024, the petitioner company had intimated about the action of the respondent No.2 to 5 at police station but no action has been taken by the said authorities and by way of letter dated 10.10.2024, had requested the respondent No.1 to assist the petitioner company in taking the possession of the properties. 5 3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner bank had lawfully initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against respondent No. 2 to 5 who had mortgaged their properties in favor of the petitioner. In order to secure possession of the said mortgaged assets, an application was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur under Section1 4 of the SARFAESI Act, which cam to be allowed vide order dated 14.03.2024. 4. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.1 Tahsildar secured the physical possession of the mortgaged property, which was duly handed over on 21.06.2024. It was further submitted that the mortgaged property had already been put to auction and the sale was confirmed in favor of respondent No.6 vide confirmation letter dated 18.09.2023. thus, the respondent No.6 is the lawful auction purchaser whose rights flow from the concluded auction proceedings. 5. However, on 01.08.2024, respondent No. 2 to 5 illegally broke open the lock placed by the petitioner in the presence of respondent No.1 and unlawfully trespassed into and re-occupied the mortgaged property. Despite the petitioner lodging information before the jurisdictional police station and Superintendent of Police on 02.08.2024 and further addressing a representation to respondent No.1 on 10.10.2024, no remedial steps have been taken by the concerned authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the possession of the property had been taken through due process of law 6 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, any unlawful re-possession by the borrower or any third party cannot divest the petitioner or the auction purchaser of their lawful rights. It was urged that the continued inaction of respondent No.1 has resulted in grave prejudice both to the petitioner bank and to respondent No.6, the bonafide auction purchaser. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 who is the auction purchaser of the mortgaged property, supported the case of the petitioner and submitted that the sale was duly confirmed in favor of the respondent NO.6 vide letter dated 18.09.2023 and therefore respondent NO.6 has acquired indefeasible rights in respect of the property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. 8. It was contended that the unlawful acts of respondent No. 2 to 5 in breaking open the locks and forcibly re-occupying the mortgaged property have not only caused serious loss to the petitioner bank but have also violated the legal rights of respondent No.6 who has purchased the property for valuable consideration in a public auction. It is submitted that respondent No.6 is entitled for peaceful possession of the property free from any encumbrances or interference and the authorities are under a statutory obligation to ensure that the lawful possession obtained pursuant to the order dated 14.03.2024 is not disturbed. 9. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance of the 7 petitioner can be redressed by approaching the competent authority. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a detailed representation before the competent authority/respondent No.1/Tahsildar raising all grounds available in law. Upon such representation being filed, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated in in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.09 15:06:21 +0530