[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Au Small Finance Bank Ltd vs Jasram (2026:Rj-Jd:6282) on 4 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:6282]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5440/2025
Au Small Finance Bank Ltd., Through Its Authorized Officer
Mohan Ram S/o Bhakar Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Having Its
Office At 5Th Floor, Shantivan Building, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Jasram S/o Manphoolram, Ward No 2 Village Panditwali
Tehsil Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
2. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh.
4. District Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Collectorate,
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. Vijay Purohit
Mr. Hanuman Singh Gour
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
04/02/2026
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humble prayed
that by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
I. The present writ petition may kindly be allowed.
II. The possession of the secured/mortgaged, property, be
restored back to the petitioner-Bank; an
III. The respondent Nos.2 to 3 may be directed to take the
possession from the respondent No.1 and restore back the
possession to the petitioner- Bank. That respondent Nos.2 &
3 be further directed to take up strict and stringent criminal
case/proceedings including the initiation of appropriate
proceedings under the Preventive Dentition Provisions
contained in Article 22 of the constitution of India and other
relevant statues against the respondent No.1 and every
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 04:28:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6282] (2 of 4) [CW-5440/2025]
member of unlawful assembly responsible the crime. in the
given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in
response to the Complaint filed by the petitioner- Bank i.e.
Annexure 6.
IV. Heavy cost may be ordered against the respondent No.1
including every member of unlawful assemble responsible
for violating the orders of this hon'ble court and further
assaulting the rule of law in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
V. Appropriate proceedings and action under the Preventive
Detention law and other appropriate statutes and law be
invoked against respondent no 1 and every member of
unlawful assembly responsible for committing the crime
against this hon'ble court as well as the rule of law.
VI. Appropriate compensation with regard to the forcible
possession taken by the respondent No.1 may also be
awarded in favour of the petitioner- Bank.
VII. Any other order of direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble
petitioner.
VIII. That Appropriate Directions to secure the ends of
justice and ensure the supremacy of the Rule of Law be
passed to the State as Well as District Authorities Including
Respondent No 4."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a Bank and it had granted loan to the respondent
No.1. Since the loan amount was not repaid by the respondent
No.1, therefore, he was declared as NPA and the proceedings
under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of
2002') were initiated by the petitioner- Bank under the Act of
2002, possession of the mortgaged property was taken over by
the petitioner- Bank with the aid of police on 21.01.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent No.1 after the possession of the mortgaged property
being taken over by the petitioner- Bank, forcibly entered the
mortgaged property by breaking in. It was submitted that act and
inaction of the respondent No.1 is nothing but tantamount to be
an assault on the rule of law. He submits that in the
circumstances, the petitioner- Bank approached the
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 04:28:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6282] (3 of 4) [CW-5440/2025]
Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh and SHO, Pilibanga for
restoring the possession of the mortgaged property but till date,
no action has been taken by them.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a sorry state of
affairs that despite repeated requests by the petitioner- Bank to
take action in the matter, the police authorities are rather silent in
the matter by not taking any action pursuant to the complaint
registered by the petitioner - Bank. Learned counsel thus prayed
that the District Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh and SHO,
Pilibanga may be directed to act upon the applications/
representations filed by the petitioner for securing the possession
of the property mortgaged by it particularly keeping in view the
fact that the property in dispute already was taken over by the
petitioner - Bank with police aid on 21.01.2025.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the
material available on record.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it just and appropriate to dispose of the present
writ petition with a direction to the Superintendent of Police,
Hanumangarh and SHO, Pilibanga to act immediately take
appropriate action for restoring the possession of the mortgaged
property to the bank, in accordance with law. This Court is
compelled to observe that if the petitioner is not allowed to take
possession of the said property, it will amount to clear case of
defiance of law and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police,
Hanumangarh and SHO, Pilibanga are under an obligation to act in
consonance with the provisions of law for restoring the possession
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 04:28:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6282] (4 of 4) [CW-5440/2025]
of the petitioner in the circumstance since the petitioner has
already approached them.
7. It is expected from the Superintendent of Police,
Hanumangarh and SHO, Pilibanga that appropriate action for
restoring the possession of the mortgaged property in favour of
the petitioner- Bank shall be taken by them within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition as
well as stay application stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
92-divya/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 04:28:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
