Revenue authorities must expeditiously execute Section 14 SARFAESI orders as time is of the essence.

The Petitioner, Axis Bank Ltd., obtained an order dated June 23, 2025, from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Raipur, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for taking physical possession of secured assets.

Despite this order, the Tahsildar, Raipur (Respondent No. 1), failed to execute the order and discharge his statutory duty.

The Petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to comply with the CJM's order, noting that non-performing assets place a significant burden on the financial system.

The State respondents expressed no objection to the petition.

1. Whether the Tahsildar/Revenue Authority is legally obligated to execute an order passed by the CJM or District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act without unnecessary delay.

Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which mandates the District Magistrate or CJM to assist secured creditors in taking possession of assets within a maximum period of 60 days.

R.D. Jain Co. v. Capital First Limited and Others (2023), which established that the power exercised under Section 14 is a ministerial act where "time is of the essence" and cannot brook delay.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Girnar Corrugators Private Limited and Others (2023), which held that authorities acting under Section 14 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between creditors and debtors, but must simply facilitate possession.

The court expressed concern over the recurring issue of Tahsildars failing to execute Section 14 orders, noting that such inaction frustrates the legislative object of the SARFAESI Act.

Applying the principle from R.D. Jain Co., the court reasoned that while the Act specifies a timeline for the Magistrate to pass the order, the subordinate Revenue Authority (Tahsildar) is equally bound to execute it expeditiously, even in the absence of a specifically prescribed statutory timeframe for the execution phase.

The court emphasized that the Tahsildar's role is purely ministerial and non-discretionary; as per the Kotak Mahindra precedent, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter or refuse execution based on external disputes.

Consequently, the court found the Tahsildar’s failure to act on the June 23, 2025, order to be a dereliction of statutory duty.

The court held that revenue authorities must not frustrate the object of the SARFAESI Act by delaying the execution of orders passed by the competent Magistrate.