The role of the executing authority (Tahsildar) in implementing an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is purely ministerial, requiring the authority to give effect to the order in its true letter and spirit.

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“10.1 Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent No. 2 i.e. The Tehsildar, District Mahasamund (CG) to execute the order passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Mahasamund (CG) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and hand of the secured asset to the petitioner within a stipulated time frame as prescribed by law.

10.2 Issue any other appropriate writ, order, or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

10.3 Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.”

2. Facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that the petitioner, ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the petitioner that a loan amounting to Rs. 20,90,000/- was sanctioned on 26.02.2022 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In consideration thereof, the said respondents created a security interest by mortgaging an immovable property in favour of the petitioner. The secured asset comprises land situated at Gram Mahasamund, Ward No. 21, FCI Road, bearing P.H.N. No. 42, Khasra No. 1987/2 (part), RNM Mahasamund, Tehsil and District Mahasamund, admeasuring approximately 1155 sq. ft. It is further averred that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 failed to adhere to the repayment schedule as agreed between the parties, as a consequence of which the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 10.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a demand notice dated 21.03.2025 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 , calling upon the borrowers to discharge their outstanding liability amounting to Rs. 19,66,003/- along with further interest. Despite service of the said notice, the borrowers failed to liquidate the dues within the stipulated statutory period of 60 days. In view of the continued default, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), seeking assistance for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 15.09.2025, allowed the said application and specifically directed the concerned Tahsildar, District Mahasamund, to visit the site in question and take peaceful physical possession of the secured asset, with liberty to seek police assistance, if required. However, despite the categorical direction and statutory mandate, the concerned Tahsildar has failed to execute the said order and has not taken any steps for handing over possession of the secured asset to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order dated 15.09.2025 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 , directing the concerned Tahsildar to hand over physical possession of the property in question to the petitioner. However, despite the passing of the said order, the concerned Tahsildar has not acted upon the same till date. It is further submitted that such inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory mandate of the SARFAESI Act, which has been enacted to ensure expeditious recovery of secured debts without unnecessary delay. The failure of the Tahs