Once possession is taken under SARFAESI Act, police are obligated to ensure no trespass occurs on the secured property.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a secured creditor under the Secularisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’). Respondents 3 and 4 had availed a housing loan for purchase of a residential property after creating a security interest over the property consisting of 02.50 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.77/10-2 of Block No.1 of Alappadu Village, which contains buildings bearing Nos. AP 3/373 and AP 3/374. Since the loan account became irregular, the account was classified as a Non Performing Asset and consequent to proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, physical possession of the secured asset was taken over by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 22.02.2025.

2. After possession of the secured asset was handed over to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 allegedly broke open the lock and trespassed into the secured property and started illegally occupying the building and its premises. Hence, petitioner lodged a complaint on 03.06.2025 before the second respondent. Since the police failed to respond, petitioner approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, seeking to initiate proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, for re-possession of the property. By Exhibit-P1 order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted the bank to re-possess the secured asset from the respondents and also directed the assistance of the Station House Officer concerned to be provided to the Advocate Commissioner to execute the order of the Court.

3. Though the property was re-possessed, petitioner alleges that, despite obtaining repossession pursuant to Exhibit-P1 order, respondents 3 and 4 once again trespassed into the property on 23.12.2025, with the assistance of others and took possession of the property again. Hence, another complaint was filed by the petitioner as Exhibit-P2, seeking police protection, to prevent further illegal entry and repeated trespass by respondents 3 and 4. Since the police failed to afford adequate protection to repossess the property, petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent contending that the remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to approach the civil court seeking appropriate reliefs and not to take recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the 3^rd respondent, since the petitioner has admitted that the third respondent is in possession of the property, the reliefs sought for in this writ petition ought not to be granted. It is also alleged that the MLA himself had come to the property and broke open the lock that was illegally put up on the door and thereafter permitted the 3^rd respondent to occupy the building. It is stated that if the petitioner was unable to secure the property taken possession of by them, the remedy lies under the civil law and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

6. Respondents 3 and 4 had availed a loan from the petitioner and had furnished a security interest of their residential property. Consequent to default in repayment, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated, and possession of the security interest was taken by the petitioner. Once possession of the property has been taken over, there is an obligation on the secured creditor to initiate every measure to ensure that the property is not destroyed or subjected to any waste and is even secured from outside interferences. Respondents 3 and 4 have allegedly repossessed the property twice after their initial eviction. It is evident from Exhi