Authorities must execute SARFAESI Section 14 possession orders within a time-bound period; unjustified delay attracts costs.

Indian Bank filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondents to obtain physical possession of the secured immovable property under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, had passed an order dated 20 August 2025 directing possession of the mortgaged property, and the matter was thereafter placed before the Tahsildar, Bahodapur, Gwalior, for execution.

The petitioner alleged that the proceedings had remained pending for more than five months without effective action. Upon the Court’s direction, the State reported that only one order-sheet had been recorded on 30 June 2026, while notices had been issued to the borrowers. The State further assured the Court that the Tahsildar would execute the CJM’s order within one month.

Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar/District Administration to execute the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and deliver physical possession of the secured asset within a prescribed time.

Whether costs should be imposed on the Tahsildar for failing to take timely action in executing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure performance of a public/statutory duty and applied Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, under which the competent Magistrate or authorised authority may facilitate the secured creditor in obtaining possession of secured assets.

The Court relied on the directions in IIFL Home Finance Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Others, as reiterated in AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. through its Authorized Officer Gaurav Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Others, W.P. No. 38230 of 2025, decided on 11 November 2025. Those directions require the Collector/District Administration to process and execute Section 14 orders expeditiously and according to a time-bound schedule; action may be deferred only where an operative interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal restrains the SARFAESI proceedings.

The Court found that, despite the CJM’s order dated 20 August 2025, the Tahsildar had taken virtually no effective steps for more than five months, recording only one order-sheet and thereby failing to execute the Section 14 possession order.

Since the State did not dispute the delay and expressly undertook to complete execution within one month, the Court applied the time-bound directions laid down in IIFL Home Finance and AU Small Finance Bank. It therefore held that the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus requiring the Tahsildar, Bahodapur, District Gwalior, to execute the CJM’s order within a fixed period. The unexplained inaction also justified imposing costs on the concerned Tahsildar.

The Tahsildar was further directed to deposit Rs. 15,000 as costs before the Principal Registrar within one month from the date of the order. Failure to deposit the costs would result in recovery proceedings and registration of a contempt case.