1 2026:CGHC:5008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 377 of 2026 1 – HDFC Bank Limited Through Its Assistant Vice President Pranjil Agrawal, S/o Shri Pushkarraj Agrawal, Aged About 37 Years, Having Office At H D F C Bank, Department For Special Operations, 4th Floor, Tower B, Peninsula Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India- 400013 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil- Raipur, District- Raipur, Pin- 492001 (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Tehsildar Tehsil- Dharsiva, District- Raipur, Pin- 492001 (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Maal Jamadar Tehsil- Raipur, District- Raipur, Pin- 492001 (Chhattisgarh) 5 - M/s A C Steels Through Its Partner Mr. Rajendra Surana R/o Middle Income Group Housing Cooperative Society, Flat No. 87, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin - 492 001 (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Rajendra Surana R/o Middle Income Group Housing Cooperative Society, Flat No. 87, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin - 492 001 (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Rahul Surana R/o Middle Income Group Housing Cooperative Society, Flat No. 87, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin - 492 001 (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Santoshi Devi Surana R/o Middle Income Group Housing Cooperative Society, Flat No. 87, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin - 492 001 (Chhattisgarh) 2 ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Govt. Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29/01/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/bank and Finance secured creditor aggrieved by non-execution of order passed by the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur under the provisions of Section 14 of the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act of 2002’). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that despite there being clear order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the Tehsildar, Raipur failed to discharge his statutory duty. He would further submit that non-performing Assets are a huge burden on the public exchequer, banking and financial system and therefore, the Tehsildar, Raipur is under obligation to comply with the direction/order passed under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002. He would pray for a direction to the concerned Tehsildar to comply with the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is surprising to note that time and again, this Court is coming across cause of action raised by the Bank aggrieved by the fact that order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 is not being executed by the Tehsildar. The scheme of the Act of 2002 enjoins the District Magistrate / Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass an order 3 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within the extended period of 60 days and thereafter, the Tehsildar or the concerned Revenue Authority to execute such order without any unnecessary delay. Merely because, time frame is not prescribed for execution of an order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 does not mean that the concerned Tehsildar would sit over the matter, thereby frustrating the object of the Act of 2002. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R.D. Jain & Co. Vs. Capital First Limited and Others, reported in 2023(1) SCC 675, while explaining the object of jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 held as under : "23. However, for taking physical possession of the secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the CMM/DM by way of a written application requesting for taking possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and for beingforwarded to it (secured creditor) for further action. The statutory obligation enjoined upon the CMM/DM is to immediately move into action after receipt of a written application under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act from the secured creditor for that purpose. As soon as such an application is received, the CMM/DM is expected to pass an order after verification of compliance of all formalities by the secured creditor referred to in the proviso in Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act and after being satisfied in that regard, to take possession of the secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward the same to the secured creditor at the earliest opportunity. 24. As mandated by Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the CMM/DM has to act within the stipulated time-limit and pass a suitable order for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets within a period of 30 days from the date of application which can be extended for such further period but not exceeding in the aggregate, sixty days. Thus, the powers exercised by the CMM/DM is a ministerial act. He cannot 4 brook delay. Time is of the essence. This is the spirit of the special enactment.” 7. Accordingly, Tehsildar, Raipur is directed to comply with the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in MJC Case No. 226 of 2025 expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of 30 days from the production of copy of this order. 8. District Magistrate, Raipur is also directed to look into the compliance of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.02.02 11:01:02 +0530