1 CGHC010298032026 2026:CGHC:34068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4061 of 2026 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Authorised Officer Nitin Choudhary, S/o Shri Parmanand Choudhary, Aged About 40 Years, Regional Office Korba, District Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate- Cum-Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tehsildar Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Savita Ratre W/o Santosh Kumar Ratre R/o House No. 6/1, Satnamipara, Gidha, Tehsil Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for 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 representations 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Bank has already completed all statutory formalities contemplated under the Act of 2002. It is contended that after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) and possession notice, the petitioner preferred proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has already passed an order dated 23.5.2026 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, particularly the Tahsildar, have failed to take consequential steps for providing possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Bank. It is further argued that 3 the proceedings under Section 14 are intended to facilitate expeditious enforcement of security interest and recovery of public money and, therefore, the authorities cannot keep such proceedings pending indefinitely without any justifiable reason. Learned counsel also submits that several representations have already been submitted before the Tahsildar, however, no action has yet been taken. Due to such inaction, the petitioner Bank is facing serious difficulty in recovery of public dues. It is therefore prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the concerned Tahsildar to conclude the proceedings and act upon the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within a stipulated period. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 has already been passed by the Chief Judicial 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 Tahsildar concerned to consider and decide the pending representation/proceedings within a reasonable time frame, the State would have no objection. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. 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 4 provisions of the Act of 2002 and subsequently obtained an order dated 23.5.2026 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite passing of the order under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and despite submission of representations before the Tahsildar, no consequential action has been taken for providing possession of the secured asset. 6. 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/representation of the petitioner and take consequential steps in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified 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. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat