MANGESH PANDURANG PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38780



                                                 (1)                        1 WP 11004 OF 2023


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              1 WRIT PETITION NO. 11004 OF 2023

                               MANGESH PANDURANG PATIL
                                        VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
                                       OTHERS

                                           WITH
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 11005 OF 2023

                                  ARUN DAMODAR CHOUDHARI
                                              VERSUS
             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
                                              OTHERS
                                                 ...
           Mr. B. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners
           Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State
           Mr. K. B. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
                                                …

                                            CORAM      : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                            DATE       : 24.08.2026

           PER COURT :-

           .           On account of the failure of the petitioners’ father to discharge the

           loan liability within the stipulated time, the respondent-Society instituted

           recovery proceedings under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative

           Societies Act. An order and recovery certificate under Section 101 of the Act

           came to be issued. Subsequently, the land was auctioned, the sale was

           confirmed and the sale certificate was also issued. Thereafter, the purchaser
                                       (2)                        1 WP 11004 OF 2023


sold the land to a third party. The sale having been confirmed and the

property having been sold to the purchaser.


2.           The legal representatives of the deceased borrower found

themselves in difficulty when they came to know about the recovery

proceedings and, therefore immediately approached this Court challenging the

sale proceedings and the auction.


3.           Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioners fairly submits

that the fixation of the upset price was challenged by the petitioners by filing a

revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, the said revision also

came to be rejected during the pendency of the present writ petitions.


4.           Learned Advocate for the respondent-Society submits that in the

present petitions, the petitioners are challenging the sale certificate issued

pursuant to the proceedings under Section 101 of the Act. He submits that the

subsequent challenge ought not to be entertained, as the foundation of all the

subsequent proceedings is the certificate issued under Section 101 of the Act.


5.           Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioners sought to rely

upon the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case Adishakti Developers Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors reported in

(2026) 5 SCC 603. He also relied upon the observations made in paragraph 39
                                         (3)                           1 WP 11004 OF 2023


thereof, which read thus:


“39. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition against confirmation of sale on
the ground that there is alternative remedy available. No doubt, the High Court
cited Rule 107 as an alternative remedy, but it did not Rule out remedy, if any,
available Under Section 154 of the 1960 Act. The legal representatives of the
defaulter chose to file a revision Under Section 154 which confers wide powers on
the State Government or the Registrar to call for and examine the record of any
inquiry or proceeding of any matter, other than those referred to in Sub-section (9)
of Section 149, where any decision or order has been passed, and against which no
appeal lies, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any
such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding. Importantly,
revisional powers conferred by the Statute are not subject to any Rules made under
the Statute. Further, remedies available Under Sub-rules (13) and (14) of Rule 107
are not in the nature of an appeal to set aside any decision or order rather it is an
application to set aside sale on grounds specified therein. In our view, therefore, the
revisional power conferred by Section 154 is extremely wide which would include
examining the legality and propriety of a proceeding qua confirmation of sale.
Moreover, such power, in our view, cannot be limited by the Rules framed under the
Statute. Thus, in our view, merely because the applicant had not taken recourse to
the remedy available Under Sub-rules (13) and (14) of Rule 107 of 1961 Rules, the
State Government or the Registrar were not denuded of their power to call for the
records of any enquiry or proceeding of any matter, where any decision or order has
been passed by a subordinate officer, to satisfy themselves as to the legality or
propriety of any such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceeding.
Another contention against the maintainability of revision is non-deposit of the
decretal amount, which, in our view, is misconceived as that would be required
Under Sub-section (2A) of Section 154 when revision is against the recovery
certificate. Here, the revision was against the confirmation of sale. Therefore, if the
sale confirmation is void, being in teeth of the provisions of extant 1961 Rules, a
revision to annul the same would not require a pre-deposit as contemplated in Sub-
section (2A) of Section 154 of the 1960 Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the
view that the revision preferred by the legal representatives of the borrower was
maintainable Under Section 154 of the 1960 Act.”


6.           The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner therein had

taken recourse to Section 154 of the Act. The powers under Section 154 are

wide and would encompass the legality or propriety of the confirmation of
                                       (4)                        1 WP 11004 OF 2023


sale. In view thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the revision

petition was maintainable under Section 154 of the Act.


7.           Thus in fact it is clear that the petitioners can avail remedy under

Section 154 of the Act even to challenge the auction and sale. In the present

case, the petitioners have not exhausted the revisional remedy under Section

154 of the Act. The auction and sale proceedings have been directly

challenged before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


8.           in view of the above, I find that the present writ petitions

challenging the auction and sale proceedings directly before this Court

without taking recourse to the statutory remedy either under Section 107 or at

least under Section 154 of the Act may not be maintainable. It is clarified that

a window under Section 154 of the Act remains open to the petitioners even

without taking recourse to the proceedings under Section 107 of the Act.


9.           After arguing for some time and noticing the disinclination of this

Court, learned Advocate for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the

present writ petitions with liberty to take appropriate proceedings, including

proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. He submits that the period spent in

prosecuting the present writ petitions may be directed to be considered while

deciding the question of delay, if any, in filing such proceedings.
                                       (5)                     1 WP 11004 OF 2023




10.          In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw

the present writ petitions with liberty as prayed for.


11.          The writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.


12.          Needless to mention, all contentions of both the parties are kept

open.




                                                    [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW