1 2026:CGHC:21940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2347 of 2026 1 - Bank Of Baroda Through Authorised Officer Shri Prahlad Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Deo Chandra Jha, Aged About 44 Years, Regional Office, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate Cum Collector Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tehsildar Tehsil Malkharoda, Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kanhaiya Lal Sahu S/o Bek Ram R/o Kalmi, Tehsil Malkharoda, Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh 5 - Udit Narayan Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sahu R/o Kalmi, Tehsil Malkharoda, Sakti, Distt. Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1. That, the records pertaining to the revenue case of the petitioner, may be kindly called for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authority to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner is a Bank which had extended financial assistance to the borrowers in the ordinary course of its banking business. According to the petitioner, the borrowers committed default in repayment of the loan amount and consequently the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with the applicable banking norms. It has been stated that the borrowers had mortgaged and secured their immovable property in favour of the petitioner Bank as security against the loan amount, which is 3 situated at Village Kalmi, Tehsil Malkharoda, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh bearing Khasra No. 66/7 admeasuring 2616 square feet. It is further the case of the petitioner that after declaration of the loan account as NPA, proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002 were initiated by the petitioner Bank. A demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 was issued to the borrowers calling upon them to liquidate the outstanding dues within the prescribed period. However, despite service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002, the borrowers failed to repay the loan amount. Thereafter, possession notice was also issued by the petitioner Bank in accordance with law. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 was preferred before the District Magistrate seeking assistance for taking possession of the secured asset and vide order dated 22.06.2018, the District Magistrate allowed the said application in favour of the petitioner Bank. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner Bank submitted a representation dated 27.04.2022 before the concerned Tahsildar for handing over possession of the secured property. Since no action was taken, another representation dated 19.11.2025 was also submitted by the petitioner Bank before the authorities concerned. However, despite repeated representations, no effective action has been taken till date by the Tahsildar concerned. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court 4 by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Bank has already completed all statutory formalities contemplated under the provisions of the Act of 2002. It is contended that after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 and possession notice, proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 were initiated and the District Magistrate has already passed an order dated 22.06.2018 in favour of the petitioner Bank. Learned counsel submits that despite passing of the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the authorities concerned have failed to take consequential steps for providing possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 are intended to facilitate expeditious enforcement of security interest and recovery of public money and the same cannot be kept pending indefinitely without any justification. It is argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the proceedings under Section 14 are ministerial in nature and are not adjudicatory proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the statute itself prescribes a time limit for disposal of proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and despite lapse of substantial time, no effective action has yet been taken by the respondent authorities. It is also contended that due to such inaction, the petitioner Bank is facing serious difficulty in 5 recovery of public dues and realization of secured assets. It is therefore prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the concerned Tahsildar to act upon the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and conclude the proceedings within a stipulated period. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 has already been passed by the District Magistrate and the matter is required to be processed by the concerned revenue authorities in accordance with law. It is further submitted that if this Court directs the concerned Tahsildar to consider and decide the pending representation/proceedings within a reasonable time frame, the State would have no objection. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the pleadings and documents filed by the petitioner, it appears that after declaration of the loan account as Non- Performing Asset, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002 and subsequently obtained an order dated 22.06.2018 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 from the District Magistrate concerned. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite passing of the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and despite submission of 6 repeated representations before the Tahsildar concerned, no consequential action has been taken for providing possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Bank. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the concerned Tahsildar to consider and decide the pending proceedings/representations of the petitioner Bank and take consequential steps in furtherance of the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no hindrance in deciding the same application or if there is no order of stay passed by any higher authority or competent Court. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge