1 2026:CGHC:18743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 101 of 2026 1 - Idfc First Bank Limited Through Deepanshu Soni S/o Late Shri Subhash Soni, Aged About 34 Years, Legal Manager, Having Branch Office At 1st Floor Satpal Chambers, Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur C.G. 2 - The Tehsildar, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur, Pin- 492001 (C.G.) 3 - Maal Jamadar, Tehsil- Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492001 4 - Chunni Lal Patel S/o Bhanji Bhai Patel R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) 5 - Deepak Patel, S/o Chunni Lal Patel R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) 6 - Dharam Singh Bhai Patel S/o Bhanji Bhai Patel R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) 7 - Kapil Patel S/o Amrit Lal Patel R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) 8 - Pradeep Patel S/o Dharam Singh Bhai Patel R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) 9 - Amrit Lal Patel S/o Bhanji Bhai Patel R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10 - Ramesh Kumar Patel S/o Bhanji Bhai Patel R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) 11 - Umiya Saw Mill R/o New Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur 492001 (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Tehsildar Raipur, District Raipur and Maal Jamadaar Raipur to forthwith facilitate and ensure the handing over of lawful possession of the mortgaged property to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks, in strict compliance with the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 17/02/2020, and to pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur, in light of the judgments passed in AU Small Finance Bank Limited (Supra) and PNB Housing Finance Ltd. (Supra), directing that after obtaining an order 3 under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the secured creditor shall not be compelled to run from pillar to post for execution of such order, and further directing the Tahsildar to ensure timely and effective execution of the said order, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner with cost.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that the financial assistance was extended to the private respondents subject to agreed terms and conditions. In consideration thereof, the borrowers created a mortgage over their immovable properties in favour of the petitioner by depositing original title deeds, thereby conferring upon the petitioner the status of a secured creditor. A loan agreement was duly executed between the parties, stipulating repayment of the loan through Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs). However, the borrowers committed default in repayment, leading to classification of the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Consequently, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were initiated by the petitioner. In furtherance thereof, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the borrowers, calling upon them to discharge their outstanding liabilities within the 4 stipulated period. Despite service of notice, the borrowers neither repaid the dues nor submitted any representation. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Raipur, seeking assistance for taking physical possession of the secured asset. Although there was initial delay, pursuant to directions issued by this Court in earlier proceedings, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 17.02.2020 allowing the application and directing the concerned Tehsildar to take possession of the mortgaged property and hand over the same to the petitioner. However, despite the said order, the concerned revenue authorities failed to act. The Tehsildar merely issued a communication forwarding instructions to subordinate officials, but no effective steps were taken to execute the order. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of on 22.04.2025 with a direction to the Tehsildar to take appropriate action. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 28.04.2025 and 27.06.2025 along with a copy of the Court’s order, yet no action has been taken till date. It is further stated that although the private respondents have filed a securitization application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, there is no interim order or stay operating against the order dated 17.02.2020 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Despite this, the respondent authorities have 5 failed to execute the said order, thereby depriving the petitioner of its lawful right to take possession of the secured asset. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, particularly the Tehsildar, in not executing the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the very object and scheme of the Act. It is contended that the SARFAESI Act has been enacted to ensure speedy recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions without unnecessary judicial intervention, and any delay in execution of orders passed thereunder defeats the legislative intent. It is further submitted that once the District Magistrate has passed an order under Section 14 directing taking of possession of the secured asset, the concerned revenue authorities are duty-bound to execute the same without delay. The failure of the Tehsildar to act, despite repeated directions of this Court and representations made by the petitioner, amounts to dereliction of statutory duty and frustrates the rights of the secured creditor. Learned counsel places reliance upon judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., wherein it has been categorically held that the authorities acting under Section 14 have no adjudicatory role and are obligated only to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets. It is argued that refusal or delay in executing such orders is wholly without jurisdiction. It is also contended that various 6 High Courts, including this Court in several decisions, have consistently directed that orders passed under Section 14 must be executed within a reasonable time, and unnecessary delay on the part of revenue authorities is impermissible. Despite such settled legal position, the respondents have failed to comply with the statutory mandate as well as the directions issued by this Court in earlier proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that there is no legal impediment in executing the order dated 17.02.2020, as no stay has been granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Therefore, the continued inaction of the respondents is unjustified and has resulted in blockage of substantial public funds, thereby causing financial prejudice not only to the petitioner but also affecting the banking system at large. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities, particularly the Tehsildar, to forthwith execute the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and hand over possession of the secured asset to the petitioner within a stipulated time. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that there is no deliberate inaction on the part of the authorities, and the matter involves procedural compliances at the field level. It is contended that certain practical and administrative constraints have caused delay in execution of the order. It is further submitted that the authorities are in the process of taking appropriate steps, 7 and necessary action shall be taken in accordance with law. Hence, no further direction is warranted at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was passed by the District Magistrate, Raipur on 17.02.2020 directing the concerned authorities to take possession of the secured asset and hand over the same to the petitioner. It is further evident that despite passage of considerable time and even after directions issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation, the said order has not been executed till date. The explanation offered by the respondents regarding administrative constraints cannot be accepted in view of the statutory mandate and settled legal position. The scheme of the SARFAESI Act clearly mandates that once an order is passed under Section 14, the concerned authorities are duty-bound to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets without unnecessary delay. Non-execution of such order defeats the very object of the Act and frustrates the rights of the secured creditor. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that appropriate directions are required to be issued. Accordingly, the concerned authorities are directed to secure possession of the property under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, as the order was passed on 17.02.2020, and to 8 comply with the said order in its letter and spirit without any further delay, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge