# Dcb Bank Ltd v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 566
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 18575 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dcb-bank-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53597
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Additional
District Magistrate/District Magistrate has the
power to entertain and execute a fresh
application under S.14 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002,
when the borrower has illegally trespassed upon
the secured asset after possession had been
taken by the secured creditor.

Headnotes
The Securitization & Reconstruction of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI
Act) - S.14 - Power of the District
Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate
to
entertain
fresh
application
-
Enforcement
of
Security
Interest
-
Continuing
Validity
of
Orders
under
Section 14 - Once an order under S.14 is
passed, it remains valid until the entire
outstanding amount is recovered, unless
recalled, reviewed, or set aside by a
competent authority - Re-exercise of
Power
by
District
Magistrate
-
No
prohibition
under
the
SARFAESI
Act
against the District Magistrate or his
delegate re-exercising powers to execute
orders under S.14.
Held: Court is "at consensus ad idem of the
view taken by the Bombay High Court"
regarding
the
power
of
the
District
Magistrate/Additional
District
Magistrate
to
entertain a fresh application under S.14 when
the borrower illegally trespasses over the
secured asset - Additional District Magistrate is
directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and pass a fresh order on the
fresh application under S.14 of the SARFAESI
Act, in accordance with law - entire exercise
shall be completed within two months by the
respondent concerned - Petition was disposed
of. (Paras 3,4,5) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
The Nashik Merchant Co-operative Bank (Multi
State Scheduled Bank) v. The District Collector,
Jalna & Ors., Bombay High Court; Bank of India
v. M/s Maharana Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,
Bombay High Court; Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Bombay
High Court; M/s Sri Balaji Centrifugal Castings v.
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., (2018) SCC Online Hyd
368; A.A. Kumaran v. Superintendent of Police,
Thrissur & Ors., Kerala High Court, WP (C) No.
5875 of 2022; Smt. Mishri Bai w/o Late Shri
Nirmal Kumar & Ors. v. Shubh Laxmi Mahila
Cooperative Bank Ltd.

List of Acts
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002
List of Keywords
SARFAESI Act - Fresh application - Restoration
of possession - Secured asset - Illegal trespass
- Rule of law - Enforcement of security interest
- Re-exercise of power - Possession of secured
asset.
7 All. Dcb Bank Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
567
Case Arising From
Writ
Petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution
of
India
seeking
a
writ
of
mandamus directing Respondents No. 2 and 3
to restore possession of the secured asset being
"House No. 4, Block H, Sector 02 & 03, Tyagi
Market, Village Loni, Pargana & Tehsil-Loni,
Ghaziabad,
Uttar
Pradesh-201102"
to
the
authorized officer of the petitioner bank as
envisaged under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act,

## Text

566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner is regarding alleged obstruction
by his neighbour in the construction of a
gate on the petitioner's property, the same
in our view would not come within the
purview of provisions of the Act 2007.
10. Petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate a legal right infringed as
available under the Act 2007. The writ
petition is dismissed. The dismissal will not
prevent him from finding his remedy as
may be available in law.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 566
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 18575 of 2025

Dcb Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shivang

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Additional
District Magistrate/District Magistrate has the
power to entertain and execute a fresh
application under S.14 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction
of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002,
when the borrower has illegally trespassed upon
the secured asset after possession had been
taken by the secured creditor.

Headnotes
The Securitization & Reconstruction of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI
Act) - S.14 - Power of the District
Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate
to
entertain
fresh
application
-
Enforcement
of
Security
Interest
-
Continuing
Validity
of
Orders
under
Section 14 - Once an order under S.14 is
passed, it remains valid until the entire
outstanding amount is recovered, unless
recalled, reviewed, or set aside by a
competent authority - Re-exercise of
Power
by
District
Magistrate
-
No
prohibition
under
the
SARFAESI
Act
against the District Magistrate or his
delegate re-exercising powers to execute
orders under S.14.
Held: Court is "at consensus ad idem of the
view taken by the Bombay High Court"
regarding
the
power
of
the
District
Magistrate/Additional
District
Magistrate
to
entertain a fresh application under S.14 when
the borrower illegally trespasses over the
secured asset - Additional District Magistrate is
directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and pass a fresh order on the
fresh application under S.14 of the SARFAESI
Act, in accordance with law - entire exercise
shall be completed within two months by the
respondent concerned - Petition was disposed
of. (Paras 3,4,5) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
The Nashik Merchant Co-operative Bank (Multi
State Scheduled Bank) v. The District Collector,
Jalna & Ors., Bombay High Court; Bank of India
v. M/s Maharana Electricals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,
Bombay High Court; Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Bombay
High Court; M/s Sri Balaji Centrifugal Castings v.
M/s ICICI Bank Ltd., (2018) SCC Online Hyd
368; A.A. Kumaran v. Superintendent of Police,
Thrissur & Ors., Kerala High Court, WP (C) No.
5875 of 2022; Smt. Mishri Bai w/o Late Shri
Nirmal Kumar & Ors. v. Shubh Laxmi Mahila
Cooperative Bank Ltd.

List of Acts
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002
List of Keywords
SARFAESI Act - Fresh application - Restoration
of possession - Secured asset - Illegal trespass
- Rule of law - Enforcement of security interest
- Re-exercise of power - Possession of secured
asset.
7 All. Dcb Bank Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
567
Case Arising From
Writ
Petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution
of
India
seeking
a
writ
of
mandamus directing Respondents No. 2 and 3
to restore possession of the secured asset being
"House No. 4, Block H, Sector 02 & 03, Tyagi
Market, Village Loni, Pargana & Tehsil-Loni,
Ghaziabad,
Uttar
Pradesh-201102"
to
the
authorized officer of the petitioner bank as
envisaged under S.14 of the SARFAESI Act,
2002.

Appearances for Parties
For the Petitioner:
Shri Aniket Raj, Advocate (as per record; cause
title mentions Shivang)
For the Respondents:
Shri Dilip Kumar Kesharwani, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel (C.S.C.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
&
(Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

1. Heard Sri Aniket Raj, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Kumar
Kesharwani, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India wherein the writ
petitioner has made the following prayer:

"i) To issue suitable writ, order,
orders or direction in the nature of mandamus,
directing the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to
forthwith restore possession of the secured
assets being "House No. 4, Block H, Sector 02
& 03, Tyagi Market, Village Loni, Pargana &
Tehsil -Loni, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-
201102" to the authorized officer of the
Petitioner as envisaged under Section 14 of
Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgments of Bombay High
Court in The Nashik Merchant Co-operative
Bank (Multi State Scheduled Bank) Versus
The District Collector, Jalna and others,
decided on February 28, 2023, Bank of India
Versus M/s Maharana Electricals Pvt. Ltd
and others, decided on September 09, 2024 and
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and another
Versus State of Maharashtra and others,
decided on June 30, 2023, to buttress the
argument
that
the
Additional
District
Magistrate/District Magistrate has the power to
execute/entertain a fresh application under
Section 14 of Securitization & Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 when the borrower
in an illegal manner trespasses over the said
property. He relies upon paragraph nos. 17, 18,
19 and 20 of the case of The Nashik Merchant
Co-operative Bank (supra) which read as
under:

"17. Mr S.V. Adwant, learned
advocate appearing for the petitioner also
places reliance on the Judgment delivered by
the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in case of M/s. Sri. Balaji Centrifugal
Castings Vs. M/s ICICI Bank Limited reported
in (2018) SCC Online Hyd 368, wherein, it is
held that there is no bar to secured creditor
maintaining more than single application under
section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act for securing
the possession of the very same secured assets.

18. The similar view has been
reiterated by the High Court of Kerala in the
matter of A.A. Kumaran Vs. Superintendent of
Police, Thrissur and Ors, in WP (C) No. 5875
of 2022 dated 18-05-2022, wherein the court
observed thus :-

21. Further, the present case reveals
an instance where a person has taken the law
into his hands by force and thereafter seeks the
benefit of legal principles. If such actions are
permitted to be perpetrated, rule of law will
suffer immeasurably. The purport of the Act is
to divest the owner of a property in the
enforcement of security interest and initiate
measures to wipe off the liability by resorting to
measures including sale. If measures taken for
dispossession and consequent sale are intermeddled by persons like respondents 4 and 5, it
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would result in a mockery of the rule of law.
The will of the people reflected through the
legislation will be seriously infringed, if the
court remains a mute spectator.

19. The High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Mishri Bai W/o
Late Shri Nirmal Kumar and others Vs.Shubh
Laxmi Mahila Cooperative Bank Ltd., has
observed thus :-

The secured creditor is not required
to approach again and again before the District
Magistrate or DRT for recovery of the amount,
once the order has been passed under section
14 of SARFAESI Act until unless the entire
outstanding amount is recovered, the order
remains valid, therefore, the Tehsildar has not
committed any error of law or he does not
functus officio unless the entire outstanding
amount is recovered by the bank. It is settled
law that any order passed bny the Authority,
quash- judicial authority or the Court or
Tribunal
remains
valid
unless
reviewed,
recalled, cancelled by the same authority or
court or set aside by the Higher Court/Tribunal,
thus the order passed by District Magistrate is
still valid and Respondent No.1/Bank is free to
take steps thereafter until the entire outstanding
amount is cleared.

20.
The
uncontroverted
factual
aspects in present matter depict that the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have devised novel,
unimaginable
and
unsustainable
modus
operandi to defeat ends of justice and fair play.
It is not only the matter of physical altercation,
but would tantamount to assault on the law and
statute. They have the audacity to overrule the
law. The growing tendency of overpowering the
law cannot be tolerated. In peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, we are inclined to
exercise powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to protect the rule of law
and deprecate rising tendency of using criminal
force against recovery proceeding undertaken
by the financial institutions in terms of
SARFAESI Act. We do not find any prohibition
under the scheme of the SARFAESI Act that
comes in the way of District Magistrate or his
delegate to re- exercise the powers to execute
the orders passed under section 14."

4. Upon considering the issue at hand, we
are at consensus ad idem of the view taken by
the Bombay High Court, and accordingly, direct
the Additional District Magistrate to grant him
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass
a fresh order on the fresh application under
Section 14 of SARFAESI Act filed before him,
in accordance with law. The entire exercise
should be completed within a period of two
months by the respondent concerned.

5. With the above direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 568
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 20244 of 2025

Talimuddin & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anup Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to challenge of the order passed
by the Joint Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Officer,
expunging the name of Sahadat Hussain,
grandfather of the petitioners, from Jamman-8
where he was recorded as hereditary tenant.
Issue for consideration was whether hereditary
tenancy rights could accrue in land used for
growing water chestnut (singhara) under the
provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.

Headnotes
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - SS. 29 , 30 -
Hereditary tenancy rights - Land covered