1 CGHC010298672026 2026:CGHC:34381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4017 of 2026 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 versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Magistrate-Cum-Collector Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, (C.G.) 3 - Tehsildar Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Sumitra Bhardwaj R/o Ward No. 17, Upar Para, Cheudih, Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Priyanshi Bhardwaj R/o Ward No. 17, Upar Para, Cheudih, Tehsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Akriti Bhardwaj R/o Ward No. 17, Upar Para, Cheudih, Tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Chetan Bai Bhardwaj R/o Ward No. 17, Upar Para, Cheudih,tehsil Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.06 18:17:25 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.08.2026 1 By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner–Bank calls in question the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in implementing the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act of 2002"), and seeks a direction for expeditious delivery of possession of the secured asset in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “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 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 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, a 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 competent authority seeking assistance for taking possession of the secured asset. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 21.05.2026, allowed the application 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 action has been taken by the Tahsildar till date. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of 4 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 the notice under Section 13(2) and the possession notice, the petitioner preferred proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has already passed the order dated 21.05.2026 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 the proceedings under Section 14 are intended to facilitate expeditious enforcement of the secured 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 repeated 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 the outstanding public dues. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the concerned Tahsildar to implement the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and take 5 consequential steps for handing over possession of the secured asset 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 learned 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 implement the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and take consequential steps within a reasonable time frame, the State would have no objection. 5 I have 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 a Non- Performing Asset, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002 and subsequently obtained an order dated 21.05.2026 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite passing of the said order and despite submission of representations before the Tahsildar, no consequential action has been taken for providing possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Bank. 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 implement the order dated 21.05.2026 passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and take consequential steps for handing over possession of the secured asset to the petitioner Bank, in accordance with law, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, provided there is no legal impediment or any order of stay passed by any competent Court or authority. 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 Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh