1 CGHC010337882026 2026:CGHC:39130 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4522 of 2026 1 - Bank Of India Through Authorised Officer Shri Ramarao Bongani S/o Shri Satyanarayana, Aged About 48 Years, Zonal Office, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - District Magistrate-Com-Collector Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) 3 - Tehsildar Tehsil Bodla, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) 4 - M/s Maa Banjari Gud Udyog Through Proprietor Narendra Chandravanshi, R/o Gandaikala, Tehsil Bodla, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 4542 of 2026 1 - Bank Of India Through Authorised Officer Shri Ramarao Bongani S/o Shri Satyanarayana, Aged About 48 Years, Zonal Office, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ---Petitioner RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.08 17:56:41 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) 3 - Tehsildar Tehsil Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) 4 - M/s Maa Sharda Gud Udyog Through Proprietor Dilip Kumar Maravi, S/o Durga Prasad Maravi, R/o Baaghamuda, Tehsil-Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 4536 of 2026 1 - Bank Of India Through Authorised Officer Shri Ramarao Bongani, S/o Shri Satyanarayana, Aged About 48 Years, Zonal Office Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate - Cum Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tehsildar, Tehsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 5 - M/s Amrika Agro Jaggery, Through Proprietor Prakash Chandravanshi, S/o Shatrughan Chandravanshi, R/o Khairjhiti, Tehsil Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPC No. 4534 of 2026 1 - Bank Of India Through Authorised Officer Shri Ramarao Bongani S/o Shri Satyanarayana Aged About 48 Years Zonal Office Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And Department Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - District Magistrate Cum Collector Kabirdham District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 3 - Tehsildar Tehsil Pipariya District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, 4 - M/s Amrika Agro Industries Through Proprietor Smt Pushpa Chandravanshi W/o Shekhar Chandravanshi R/o Chhata Tehsil- Pipariya District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, --- Respondents WPC No. 4528 of 2026 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Authorised Officer Nagendra Singh, S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Regional Office Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 4 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate Cum Collector Balrampur Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tehsildar Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Sangeeta Yadav W/o Shri Ramashankar Yadav Aged About 29 Years Proprietor Of Pari Oil Mill, R/o Ward No. 13, Kumhar Para, Ramanujganj, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. All these captioned writ petitions share a common background and involve the same issues, therefore, they were clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 4522 of 2026 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of disposing all the writ petitions. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for the 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. 5 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.” 4. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Bank, which had extended financial assistance to the borrowers by sanctioning loan facilities. However, the borrowers failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and committed default in repayment of the outstanding loan amount, resulting in the loan account being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Consequently, the petitioner issued a demand notice to the borrowers under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act of 2002). Despite service of the said notice, the borrowers failed to discharge their outstanding liability within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner initiated measures for taking possession of the secured asset and, for the said purpose, preferred an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the competent District Magistrate. The said application was duly registered and, upon consideration, the District Magistrate passed an order on 17.01.2025 directing the concerned authorities to take necessary steps in accordance with law for handing over possession of the secured asset to the petitioner. However, despite the passing of 6 the aforesaid order, the concerned Tehsildar has not taken any action for implementation of the order passed by the District Magistrate, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions for compliance of the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned inaction on the part of the respondent in not deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner is wholly contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are essentially intended to facilitate the taking of possession of the secured asset and are not adjudicatory in nature. He next submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for expeditious conclusion of proceedings under Section 14, particularly as the statutory scheme contemplates completion of the proceedings within the prescribed period. In the present case, despite the order passed by the District Magistrate on 17.01.2025, the concerned Tehsildar has failed to take any effective steps for implementation thereof and, even after expiry of the prescribed period, the proceedings have not been brought to their logical conclusion. Such inaction has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner-Bank and has adversely affected its right to recover the outstanding loan amount, which constitutes public money. It is further submitted that despite service of the demand and possession notices, the 7 borrowers have failed to discharge their outstanding liability and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to pursue the measures available to it under the Act of 2002, including taking possession of the secured property. He further submits that expeditious conclusion of the proceedings under Section 14 is necessary to enable the petitioner-Bank to proceed further with the recovery of the outstanding dues and to secure possession of the secured asset in accordance with law. Accordingly, a direction may be issued to the concerned respondent/Tehsildar to take necessary steps and conclude the proceedings and act upon the order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 within a stipulated period. 6. 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. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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 8 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. With this observation and direction, the writ petitions stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju