1 2026:CGHC:27499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2664 of 2026 Griham Housing Finance Limited (Formerly Known As Magma Housing Finance Limited And Poonawala Housing Finance Limited) Through Hemant Kusare S/o Shri Natthuji Aged About 46 Years Working As Area Legal Manager Having Office At 4th Floor Girish Heights Near L I C Square Kamthi Road Nagpur Pin- 440001 Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Tehsildar Tehsil Ambikapur District- Surguja Pin - 497001 (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Rupesh Kumar Singhal S/o Om Prakash Agrawal, Resident Of Near Shailgiri Hotel Namankala Nagar Thana Gandhi Nagar Ambikapur District- Surguja 497001 (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Rupa Singhal W/o Rupesh Kumar Singhal Resident Of Near Shailgiri Hotel Namankala Nagar Thana Gandhi Nagar Ambikapur District- Surguja 497001 (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate appears through VC. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Arham Siddique, Panel Lawyer SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.07 10:49:06 +0530 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 to forthwith facilitate and ensure the handing over the of lawful possession of the mortgaged property to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks, in strict compliance with the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 09/02/2026, and to pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur, in light of the judgments passed in AU Small Finance Bank Limited (Supra) and PNB Housing Finance Ltd. (Supra), directing that after obtaining an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the secured creditor shall not be compelled to run from pillar to post for execution of such order, and further directing the Tahsildar to ensure timely and effective execution of the said order, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner with cost. 3 2. The facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner Griham Housing Finance Limited, is a secured creditor engaged in housing finance. The private respondents are default borrowers. The petitioner granted a housing loan to the private respondents against the security mortgage of their immovable property, executed through the deposit of original title deeds. The borrowers default on their Equated Monthly Installments. Therefore, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) under Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines. The petitioner issued a Statutory Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The borrowers failed to clear the outstanding dues or prefer any representation within the statutory period of 60 days. Due to non-compliance, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur (MJC No.04/2026). On 9.2.2026, the learned CJM passed an order directing the Tahsildar, Ambikapur to take physical possession of the secured asset and hand it over to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order dated 9.2.2026 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, directing the concerned Tahsildar to hand over physical possession of the property in question to the petitioner. However, despite the passing of the said order, the concerned Tahsildar has not acted upon the same till date. It is further submitted that such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to 4 the statutory mandate of the SARFAESI Act, which has been enacted to ensure expeditious recovery of secured debts without unnecessary delay. The failure of the Tahsildar to execute the order defeats the very object and purpose of the legislation. Learned counsel further submits that the role of the Magistrate or the authority under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely ministerial in nature, as has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and once an order has been passed, the concerned authority is duty-bound to render assistance in taking possession of the secured asset. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P.(C) No. 5664 of 2025, decided on 31.10.2025), wherein in similar circumstances, directions were issued to the concerned Tahsildar to execute the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a stipulated time frame. It is thus contended that the continued inaction and delay on the part of the concerned respondent is causing grave prejudice to the petitioner and is resulting in blockage of substantial public funds. The petitioner, having no other efficacious alternative remedy, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions for enforcement of the order dated 9.2.2026 and for handing over possession of the secured asset. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that there is no deliberate inaction on the part of the respondent authorities and that the 5 process for execution of the order is underway in accordance with law. It is contended that certain administrative and procedural formalities, including verification of records and ensuring maintenance of law and order, are required to be complied with prior to taking physical possession. It is further submitted that the respondents shall act upon the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within a reasonable time, and therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, a secured creditor, had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and pursuant thereto, an application under Section 14 of the Act was preferred before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ambikapur. It is further an admitted position that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 9.2.2026, allowed the said application and categorically directed the concerned Tahsildar to take peaceful physical possession of the secured asset and hand over the same to the petitioner, with liberty to seek police assistance, if required. The said order has not been shown to have been set aside or stayed by any competent forum. In such circumstances, once an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been passed by the competent Magistrate, the role of the executing authority, i.e., the Tahsildar, is ministerial in nature and it is incumbent upon the said authority to give effect to the order in its true letter and spirit. 6 7. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has already been passed, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 2 – the concerned Tahsildar, District Ambikapur, to comply with the order and directions issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 9.2.2026, in its letter and spirit, if the same has not been challenged before the competent forum, expeditiously. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay