1 CGHC010298102026 2026:CGHC:34681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4072 of 2026 Bank Of Baroda Through Authorised Officer, Shri Prahlad Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Deo Chandra Jha, Aged About 44 Years, Regional Office At Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Disrict Magistrate-Cum-Collector Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tehsildar, Sarangarh District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - M/s Shiv Shakti Fly Ash Bricks Through Proprietor, Smt. Basanti Bai Jaiswal, W/o Shiv Kumar Jaiswal, R/o Village Tandipar, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh 5 - Smt. Kola Sahu W/o Late Ganesh Ram Sahu R/o Village Parsada Bade, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 6 - Arat Ram Sahu S/o Late Ganesh Ram Sahu R/o Village Parsada Bade, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Parvati Sahu W/o Santram Sahu R/o Village Parsada Bade, Tehsil Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That the records pertaining to the revenue case of the petitioner maybe kindly be called for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this 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 3 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. After declaration of the loan account as NPA, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act of 2002”). A demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 was issued to the borrowers calling upon them to repay the outstanding dues within the prescribed period. Despite issuance of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002, the borrowers failed to liquidate the outstanding liability. Thereafter, possession notice was also issued by the petitioner Bank. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Bank thereafter preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the District Magistrate seeking assistance for taking possession of the secured asset. The District Magistrate passed an order dated 13.02.2023 in favour of the petitioner Bank. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner Bank submitted representations before the concerned Tahsildar requesting implementation of the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and for handing over possession of the secured property. However, despite submission of such representations, no effective 4 action has been taken by the Tahsildar till date. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions. 3. 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 District Magistrate has already passed an order dated 13.02.2023 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 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 5 passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 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 Tahsildar concerned 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 13.02.2023 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 from the District 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. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction 6 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. 8. 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. 9. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL