Borrowers illegally re-occupying mortgaged property after eviction cannot be rewarded; authorities must provide fresh assistance to banks for repossession.

The petitioner, a financial institution and secured creditor, obtained an order dated 10.03.2023 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act from the District Magistrate to take possession of a secured asset in Rau, Indore

While the authorities initially handed over the property, the borrower (Respondent No. 4) subsequently re-entered the premises and reclaimed illegal possession

Despite a representation dated 27.05.2026, the respondent authorities failed to dispossess the borrower or restore vacant possession to the petitioner

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for the re-execution/implementation of the Section 14 order

1. Whether there is a legal bar on re-executing an order of possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act if a borrower illegally re-enters a secured asset after its initial handover

2. Whether respondent authorities are duty-bound to provide administrative assistance to dispossess a borrower who has committed criminal trespass into a previously recovered secured asset

Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, which mandates that the District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate assist secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets

Division Bench precedent in Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. v. The District Magistrate, Gwalior & Ors (W.P. No. 1681/2025), which established that illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetuated and that the SARFAESI Act provides a mechanism for recovery where no other effective legal remedy is available

The court reasoned that the primary objective of the SARFAESI Act is to facilitate the rapid recovery of non-performing assets without protracted legal intervention

It observed that the borrower's act of re-entering the property under the guise of removing belongings constituted a trick that should not be "rewarded"

The court determined that Section 14 contains no legal impediment to providing "re-assistance" to a secured creditor once a borrower has illegally trespassed into the property

Since the statutory scheme of the SARFAESI Act is intended to be exhaustive for loan recovery, the court found the plea of "alternative remedy" inapplicable, noting that the petitioner's rights as a secured creditor remain paramount over a defaulting borrower

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 (Tehsildar) to perform the "needful to take free possession of the property" within 15 days of receipt of the order

The petitioner was granted liberty to apply to the authority with a copy of the judgment for immediate implementation