Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd Thorugh Its Authorises Officer vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Thorugh Its Principal Secretary Department Of Home

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30896
1 WP-44972-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44972 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020431052026
VASTU HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD THORUGH ITS
AUTHORISES OFFICER
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THORUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Pragya Joshi - Advocate along with Ms. Krishna Paliya -
Advocate for the petitioner. .
Ms. Bhagyashree Gupta - GA for the State.
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking following reliefs :
i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including _a writ of mandamus,
directing Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 (Collectors and District Magistrates) and
Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 (Superintendents of Police), as applicable to the respective
matters, to provide necessary police and revenue assistance to the Petitioner in
relation to the secured assets in respect of which physical possession was taken
pursuant to proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for securing
and, wherever warranted in law, restoring possession thereof to the Petitioner;
ii) Direct the concerned Respondent Nos. 3 to 10, as applicable, to take appropriate
steps in accordance with law in respect of alleged unauthorised re-entry into,
obstruction of, or interference with the secured assets, including removal of
unauthorised occupants, wherever legally permissible;]
iii) Direct the concerned Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 (Superintendents of Police) and
other competent police authorities, as applicable to the respective matters, to
consider and take appropriate action in accordance with law on the representations
and complaints submitted by the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:29:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30896
2 WP-44972-2026
iv) Pass any other or further order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest

of justice .
2. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier, the possession was taken
over by the Tehsildar pursuant to the order passed in the proceeding under
section 14 of the SARFAESI Actm, 2002, therefore, the borrower has again
entered into the possession, which was already taken over, and not vacating
the possession, therefore, the petitioner / Finance Corporation approached the
Tehsildar for repossession by making representation, but the same has not
yet been decided. By relying upon the order dated 16/06/2025 passed by
Division Bench of this Court in W.P. no. 1681/2015, it is prayed that present
petition may be allowed as there is no bar to take over the possession again
pursuant to the order passed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
3. I have considered the submissions at bar and also considered the
fact that once the possession is taken over by the Tehsildar pursuant to the
order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, it is the duty of
the secured creditor to preserve the property and possession in appropriate
manner. In many cases, it is found that after taking over the possession, the
secured creditor are not acting in vigilant manner and for reasons best known
to them, they are also not proceeding further and due to the delay of further
proceeding, borrowers are again entering into the possession of properties/
premises. Such approach on the part of the secured creditors are also required
to be viewed strictly and also consider as negligent approach of the secured
creditors on their part in discharging their duties, once the possession is
already taken over.
4. After observing that, it is needless to observe that the Tehsildar is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:29:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30896
3 WP-44972-2026
always empowered to assist the secured creditor in case of difficulty in

taking over the possession of the property Though earlier, the Tehsildar had
assisted the secured creditor, again there is no bar under the law to provide
more assistance. This factum is considered by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.P. no. 1681/2015, of which relevant paras are reproduced as
under :
2. Precisely stated facts of the case, giving rise to the present petition are that
petitioner is a financial institution as defined under the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as “the Securitization Act”). Petitioner company extended
the loan facility to the borrower in lieu of property mortgaged by the borrower.
Thereafter, since borrower failed to pay the loan amount, therefore, petitioner
issued a notice under Section 3(2) of the the Securitization Act but borrower did not
hose to repay the loan amount. Therefore, petitioner moved an application under
Section 14 of the the Securitization Act before the District Magistrate, Gwalior for
taking possession of the property from the borrower. That application was allowed
on 05-01-2023 directing the concerned Tahsildar to take possession of the property
under mortgage.
10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that there is no legal bar on
re-executing the order of possession or providing re- assistance to the secured
creditor as tried to be projected by the respondents through their return. As such
there is no legal impediment to dispossess the borrower from the mortgaged
property once he has illegally entered into it.
11. Illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetuated. Here, in the present case, the
borrower with their family members, reentered into the mortgaged property on the
pretext of removing their belongings and thereafter if they are not vacating the
mortgaged property, then the petitioner being secured creditor has remedy to again
approach the respondents authorities to provide assistance and aid to take possession
back from the borrower by dispossessing him from the property in question.
12. The tricks adopted by the borrower in entering into the mortgaged property after
taking over possession by the petitioner, cannot be permitted to be rewarded. Once
the borrower failed to repay the loan amount then the property which is under
mortgage should be taken over by the petitioner as petitioner falls under the category
of secured creditor. In fact, by the action of borrowers, while re-entering into the
premises, legally owned by petitioner, made themselves vulnerable. Now, petitioner
may initiate criminal proceedings also for criminal trespass and other related
offences.
5. Otherwise also, this Court is of the opinion that repossession can
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:29:31

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30896
4 WP-44972-2026
always be taken over as in the case for the purpose to unite the proceeding

under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and with a view to assist in the process of
recovery of huge public money, the State Authorities, more particularly, the
Tehsildar / Respondent - Authority is duty bound to provide all assistance in
taking over possession, however, it is painful to note that due to lackluster
approach and negligent approach taken by the Authority of Secured Creditor
by not preserving the possession of the property, which is already taken over,
again entire machinery is required to be engaged in same process for taking
over the possession. For that aspect, it is a fit case, where the Court can
impose cost upon the present petitioner, however, with a view to see that in
future, the petitioner will be more vigilant in other cases, this Court is
refrained to impose any cost at this stage.
6. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed by directing
the respondent / Authority concerned to see that repossession of the property,
which is subject matter of present petition, can be taken over and handed
over to the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible ,
preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
7. Present petition is disposed of accordingly.
CC as per rules.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
amol

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:29:31