Rajasthan HC Directs Police to Restore Mortgaged Flat to IndusInd Bank After Borrowers Retake Possession by Force
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand gave the State and district police six weeks to restore possession of a Neemrana flat to IndusInd Bank after borrowers muscled back in despite a Section 14 SARFAESI order.
The Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench, on 9 September 2026, directed the State of Rajasthan and the police authorities of Kotputli-Behror district to restore physical possession of a mortgaged flat in Neemrana, Alwar, to IndusInd Bank within six weeks. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, disposed of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6623/2026 after finding that two borrowers, whose bank accounts had been declared Non-Performing Assets, had forcibly retaken the flat even though a Chief Judicial Magistrate had already ordered its handover to the bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The bench drew directly on a co-ordinate bench decision from the court's Principal Seat at Jodhpur to reach the same outcome.
The Dispute Before the High Court
IndusInd Bank, acting through its authorised signatory Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, filed the writ petition after the investigating police at Police Station Shahjahanpur, Kotputli-Behror, failed to act on FIR No.33/2026, registered on 6 March 2026.
The subject property is Flat No.173/101, First Floor, Plot No. B-173, Meri Gold Green Acres Ashadeep, Village Ishwar Singh Pura and Faulandmpur, Neemrana, Alwar — a unit admeasuring a super built-up area of 1,199.97 sq ft and a built-up area of 850.14 sq ft. The flat had been mortgaged by respondents Sunil Kumar Yadav and Navita as security for the loan they had taken from the bank.
After the accounts were declared NPAs, the bank moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 14 enables a secured creditor to apply to a magistrate for assistance in taking possession of secured assets when borrowers resist handing them over. The CJM allowed the application on 30 August 2025 and directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to secure possession of the flat from the borrowers. Possession was accordingly taken on 10 December 2025.
The situation did not hold. The borrowers, by what the court described as “muscle power,” forcibly retook the flat. The bank's FIR followed in March 2026, but more than one year after the magistrate's order, the police had still not restored possession to the bank.
The Legal Question
The central question was whether a writ court can direct the police to enforce a Section 14 SARFAESI possession order that is being flouted by the borrowers. The bank's counsel, Mr. Jitendra Choudhary, contended that the order of the CJM was valid and enforceable, that the borrowers had no legal right to the flat after possession was lawfully taken, and that the inaction of the Superintendent of Police, Kotputli-Behror, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahjahanpur, amounted to a failure to uphold the rule of law.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Dhand found the facts straightforward. The borrowers had taken a loan, mortgaged the flat, defaulted, gone through Section 14 proceedings before the CJM, and had the flat lawfully taken from them. They then retook it by force. An FIR had been registered, yet the investigating agency had taken no effective steps.
The bench placed direct reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench at the Jodhpur Principal Seat in Atma Ram Bishnoi & Another v. District Collector & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8983/2022. In that case, a borrower had similarly retaken a mortgaged property through what the Jodhpur bench called muscle power, and the police and district collector had done nothing despite representations from the bank. The Jodhpur bench had directed the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, to restore possession within four weeks.
The Jodhpur bench's reasoning, quoted at length by Justice Dhand, was pointed: Atma Ram Bishnoi held that state functionaries are “under an obligation to restore rule of law” and that failing to do so would create lawlessness in Rajasthan. It warned that courts would view such inaction very seriously.
Justice Dhand concluded that the controversy in the present petition was “identical and similar” to Atma Ram Bishnoi and saw no valid reason to take a different view. The bench did not add any independent doctrinal analysis but applied the coordinate bench's reasoning directly to the facts.
Directions Issued
The court directed respondents Nos.1 to 3 — the State of Rajasthan (through the Principal Secretary, Home Department), the Superintendent of Police, Kotputli-Behror, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahjahanpur — to take all possible endeavours to restore possession of the mortgaged flat to IndusInd Bank in accordance with law.
The bench set a six-week deadline running from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Outcome
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6623/2026 was disposed of on 9 September 2026 with directions to the State of Rajasthan, the Superintendent of Police, Kotputli-Behror, and the Station House Officer, Police Station Shahjahanpur, to restore possession of Flat No.173/101, Meri Gold Green Acres Ashadeep, Neemrana, Alwar, to IndusInd Bank within six weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The police are required to act in accordance with law and give effect to the Section 14 SARFAESI possession order passed by the CJM, Kotputli, on 30 August 2025.