State authorities are legally obligated to restore possession of secured assets to a bank if a borrower forcibly dispossesses the bank after legal possession was taken under the SARFAESI Act, to prevent lawlessness and uphold the rule of law.

Order

07/04/2026

1. In pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2026 read with order dated 12.03.2026, the amended writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner.

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:46:06 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 11:02:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14426] (2 of 4) [CW-4061/2026] 2. Mr. Ravi Kumar Palsaniya, learned counsel for petitioner has confined his submissions to the extent of prayer No.1 of the writ

petition, which reads as under :-

"i. Issue an appropriate writ order or directions to the Respondent No.1-4 to restore the physical possession of the secured assets in favour of the petitioner bank immediately without any further delay in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the matter titled

"Atma Ram Bishnoi vs. AU Small Finance Bank."

3. In view thereof, issue notice to the respondents No.1 to 4

only.

4. Ms. Sunita Meena, Advocate, and Ms. Devakriti Vashishtha, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, learned AAG, puts

in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4.

5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the petition stands duly covered by the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15697/2024 titled as AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. Versus Atma Ram Bishnoi & Ors. and other connected matters, the

relevant portion of which reads as under:

“The facts narrated above clearly show that the respondent No.1 had taken loan from the petitioner and in the process, he had mortgaged his property for securing the loan amount. It is also clear that the respondent No.1 had not repaid the loan amount, therefore, the proceedings under the Act of 2002 were initiated against him. The proceedings aforesaid culminated into issuance of possession notice by the petitioner bank for securing the loan amount. After the petitioner having taken over possession of the mortgaged property of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 through his muscle power has forcibly taken

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 01:46:06 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 11:02:12 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14426] (3 of 4) [CW-4061/2026]

over possession of the mortgaged property and has been enjoying the same without repayment of the loan amount due to the petitioner. The petitioner in these circumstances approached the respondent No.2-Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar and respondent No.4-District Collector, Sri Ganganagar by way of filing appropriate representations as per the Rules for securing possession of the mortgaged

property.

It is informed that till date, the possession of mortgaged property has not been restored to the petitioner bank. The State functionaries are under an obligation to restore rule of law. If the petitioner is not allowed to take possession of the mortgaged property, it will amount to a clear case of defiance of rule of law and therefore, the respondents Nos.2 and 4 are under an obligation to act in consonance with the provisions of law for restoring possession of the petitioner in the circumstances when the

petitioner has already approached them.

This Court is surprised that on one hand, a person had taken loan and when the same was not repaid, the possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by the petitioner bank as per law but by sheer muscle power, the petitioner bank has been dislodged and possession of the mortgaged property has been forcibly taken over by the respondent No.1 and despite having represented to the law enforcing officer, nothing has been done to uphold majesty of law ti