1 CGHC010384942026 2026:CGHC:42492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4989 of 2026 1 - 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 - District Magistrate-Cum-Collector Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintendent Of Police Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 6 - Haresh Kumar Kshatriya Aged About 45 Years R/o Subhash Ward, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Sub Gramin Bank, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/09/2026 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 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 3 passed the order dated 22.06.2026 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 consequential steps for handing over possession of the secured asset 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 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 4 14 of the Act of 2002 and take consequential steps within a reasonable time frame, the State would have no objection. 4. I have 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 a Non- Performing Asset, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 2002 and subsequently obtained an order dated 22.06.2026 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. 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 implement the order dated 22.06.2026 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. 5 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