M/S SEJAL FEEDS ALIAS M/S SEJAL FOODS THRU. ASHWINI RAJENNDRA DALVI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. THE DEPT OF CO-OPERATION MAND ORS

Neeta Sawant                                                 903-WP-13506-2026.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                     WRIT PETITION NO. 13506 OF 2026


M/s. Sejal Feeds alias M/s. Sejal Foods                              ...Petitioner
through Ashwini Rajenndra Dalvi & Anr.


                     : Versus :


The State of Maharashtra, through The                               ...Respondents
Department of Co-operation and Ors.



Mr. Dhananjay B. Thokke, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Suresh Sabrad with Ms. Neha Parte, Mr. Amey Sawant, Mr. Pratik
Sabrad, Ms. Eshwanee Kudalkar, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for State.

Mr. Mahendra Kedare, Representative of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5-Bank is
present in Court.



                                          CORAM:         SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                          DATED:         9 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:


1)                The Petition challenges order dated 12 August 2026 passed
by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik
Division, Nashik (DJR) dismissing Revision Application No. 107/2026

                                      PAGE NO. 1 of 8
                                    Friday, 9 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                              903-WP-13506-2026.docx


filed by the Petitioner and confirming the order dated 27 March 2026
passed by the District Deputy Registrar (DDR) fixing the upset price of
the property as Rs.3,84,23,000/-.


2)             I have heard Mr. Thoke, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, Mr. Sabrad for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Ms. Kapadia,
for State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.


3)             Petitioner is aggrieved by fixation of upset price of the
mortgaged property which is slated for sale for recovery of loan amount
availed by them.        The DDR has determined the upset price as
Rs.3,84,23,000/-.


4)             The upset price of Rs.3,84,23,000/- is based on the
Valuation Report of Mr. Gunwant L. Chaudhari, Government Approved
Valuer. On the other hand, Petitioner relied on Valuation Report of M/s.
Srujan Architects (Mr. Sarang G. Patil) who suggested market value of
the property at Rs.12,22,82,000/-.


5)             Mr. Thoke, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the upset price is fixed in gross violation of the Third
Proviso to Rule 107(11)(f) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
Rules, 1961 (MCS Rules). He submits that under that Proviso, the upset
price needs to be approved by the Registrar by considering the
comparative price prevailing in the markets, ready reckoner rates and by
obtaining valuation from the approved valuer. Rule 107(11)(f) of the
MCS Rules provides thus :




                                   PAGE NO. 2 of 8
                                 Friday, 9 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                  903-WP-13506-2026.docx


               f) When any immovable property is sold under these rules, the sale
               shall be subject to the prior encumbrances on the property, if any.
               The applicant shall, when the amount for the realisation of which
               the sale is held exceeds Rs. 100, furnish to the Recovery Officer)
               within such time as may be fixed by him or by the Recovery
               Officer, an encumbrance certificate from the Registration
               Department for the period of not less than twelve years prior to the
               date of attachment of the property sought to be sold, or in cases
               falling under the proviso to sub-rule (10), prior to the date of the
               application for execution. The time for production of the
               encumbrance certificate may be extended at the discretion of the
               'Recovery Officer), as the case may be. The sale shall be by public
               auction to the highest bidder:

               Provided that it shall be open to the Recovery Officer to decline to
               accept the highest bid where the price offered appears to be unduly
               low or for other adequate reasons:

               Provided further that, the Recovery Officer shall obtain prior
               approval of the Registrar to the upset price of movable and
               immovable property before publication of proclamation of sale:

               Provided also that, upset price shall be approved by the Registrar
               by considering the comparative prevailing prices in the market,
               ready recokner rates, by obtaining valuation from the approved
               valuer within one month from the date of receipt of proposal from
               the Recovery Officer, after hearing the judgment debtor. Such
               approved upset price shall be valid for six months from the date of
               approval:]

               Provided also that the Recovery Officer may, in his discretion,
               adjourn the sale to a specified day and hour, recording his reason
               for such adjournment. Where a sale is so adjourned for a longer
               period than seven days, a fresh proclamation under clause (e) shall
               be made, unless the defaulter consents to waive it.

               The sale shall be held after the expiry of not less than thirty days
               calculated from the date on which notice of the proclamation was
               affixed in the office of the Recovery Officer. The time and place of
               sale shall be fixed by the Recovery Officer and the place of sale
               shall be the village where the property to be sold is situated or such
               adjoining prominent place of public resort as may be fixed by the
               Recovery Officer:

               Provided that in cases where an encumbrance certificate is not
               obtainable owing to the destruction of the connected records, an
               affidavit from the village Talathi or corresponding officer in regard

                                       PAGE NO. 3 of 8
                                     Friday, 9 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                  903-WP-13506-2026.docx


               to the encumbrances known to him supported by a certificate from
               the Registration Department that the encumbrance certificate
               cannot be granted owing to the destruction of the connected
               records shall be accepted in place of an encumbrance certificate.


6)             According to Mr. Thoke, the DDR cannot rely solely on the
valuation report submitted by the credit society and it is incumbent for
him to procure an independent valuation report. I am afraid the Third
Proviso to Rule 107(11)(f) does not provide so. Under the provisions of
Third Proviso to Rule 107(11)(f), the Registrar needs to have due regard
to the valuation of the approved valuer.             In the present case, the
valuation report relied upon by the credit society is by the government
approved valuer. In that sense, there appears to be no violation of Third
Proviso to Rule 107(11)(f) of the MCS Rules.


7)             Mr. Thoke further submits that the valuer of the society did
not conduct independent valuation and based his valuation squarely on
the old valuation report of Nabhangan Engineers dated 11 March 2021.
True it is that the valuation report of Mr. Gunwant Chaudhari makes a
reference to the old valuation report of Nabhangan Engineers dated 11
March 2021. However it appears that Mr. Gunwant Chaudhari
conducted independent site visit and has not relied entirely upon on the
valuation report of Nabhangan Engineers.                    Even otherwise, Mr.
Gunwant Chaudhari has conducted independent valuation by applying
unit rate of Rs.2750 per sq.mtr in respect of land admeasuring 13,972
sq.mts. It appears that the ready reckoner rate/government valuation is
only Rs.930/- per sq.mtrs, according to which valuation of the land is
only Rs.1,29,93,960/-. By applying the value of Rs.2,750/- per sq.mtr.,
the valuer of the society has determined the market value of the land at
Rs.3,84,23,000/-.

                                     PAGE NO. 4 of 8
                                   Friday, 9 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                               903-WP-13506-2026.docx




8)             The next complaint raised by Mr. Thoke is that the valuer
of the society has altogether ignored the cost of the residential bungalow
on the ground that the same comes under road widening. It appears that
the society's valuer has twice indicated in his report that the valuation
of the bungalow cannot be considered on account of the fact hat the
same comes under road widening.           In this regard, in Item-6 of the
report, the valuer has observed thus :


               6. As the Residential Bungalow is Under Proposed Road Widening
               area. I have not Considered Residential bungalow for Valuation
               Purpose.

9)             Similarly, under Item-10(6), the Valuer has stated thus :
               As the Residential Bungalow is Under Proposed Road Widening
               area, I have not Considered Residential bungalow for Valuation
               Purpose.

10)            However, prima-facie there is nothing on record to indicate
that the residential bungalow comes under road widening area. It also
appears that Petitioner had specifically raised the objection that the
bungalow does not come under road widening in his revision petition.
The DJR has however altogether ignored this objection raised by the
Petitioner.


11)            If the valuation report of Petitioner’s valuer is taken into
consideration, the value of the bungalow admeasuring 240 sq.mts is
indicated by him as Rs.41,04,000/-. With a view to avoid any further
delay in sale of the property, Mr. Sabrad has suggested that the value of
bungalow of Rs.41,04,000/- indicated in the report of Petitioner 's
valuer be added in the upset value determined by the DDR.                    This

                                    PAGE NO. 5 of 8
                                  Friday, 9 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                             903-WP-13506-2026.docx


suggestion made by Mr. Sabrad quells the objection sought to be raised
on behalf of the Petitioner about ignorance of value of the constructed
bungalow. Accordingly, the value of the constructed bungalow of
Rs.41,04,000/- can be added to the upset price of Rs.3,84,23,000 /-,
which would increase the upset price to Rs.4,25,27,000 /-. Beyond this,
I am not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the Petitioners since
the valuation otherwise appears to be valid.


12)            Mr. Thoke submits that since the upset price           is being
modified, the Proclamation for Sale published vide Notice dated 9
September 2026 be set aside and the Society be directed to issue a fresh
proclamation of sale. However, Mr. Thoke is unable to point out any
specific provision of law which requires maintenance of any time gap
between fixing of upset price and conduct of auction process. In the
present case, proclamation for sale has already been made vide Notice
dated 9 September 2026. All that is being done is to only modify the
upset price indicated therein. This Court is proposing to direct issuance
of a Corrigendum to the proclamation of sale only to the extent of
revision of upset price. In my view therefore, there is no necessity of
issuance of fresh proclamation in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.


13)            This Court also notices conduct on the part of the
Petitioner and his relatives in repeatedly delaying sale of the mortgaged
asset. After trying his own luck in challenging the Recovery Certificate
by filing Writ Petition No.2267 of 2025, which was dismissed by order
dated 19 September 2025, Petitioner's brother-in-law Mr. Prakash
Onkar Patil filed Writ Petition No. 7758 of 2026 complaining that he is
the lessee in respect of mortgaged land and therefore the sale thereof
                                  PAGE NO. 6 of 8
                                Friday, 9 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                       903-WP-13506-2026.docx


cannot be conducted. The objection raised by the Petitioner 's brother-
in-law was required to be adjudicated by the society in pursuance of
order dated 25 June 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.7758 of 2026.
After the objection was repelled, sister of the Petitioner, Ms. Manjusha
Satish Patil appeared on the scene and raised objection to the sale. She
filed Writ Petition No. 8721 of 2026 and the Recovery Officer was
required to decide the objections raised by her as well.                      It is after
defending repeated litigations filed by the Petitioners and their relatives
that the sale is ultimately going to be fructified on 12 October 2026. In
my view therefore, it is not necessary to postpone the auction sale any
further, merely because the upset price is being modified.


14)                  In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the
following order :


               i.     Orders dated 12 August 2026 passed by the DJR and order
                      dated 27 March 2026 passed by the DDR are modified by
                      directing that the upset price of the property shall be
                      Rs.4,25,27,000/-.


               ii.    Respondent No.4-Recovery Officer shall accordingly issue
                      a Corrigendum to the proclamation of sale by indicating
                      the upset price of the property as Rs.4,25,27,000/-.


               iii. Since the auction is already slated to be held on 12 October
                      2026, Notice shall be published indicating the revised
                      upset price in the newspapers on 10 October 2026.



                                            PAGE NO. 7 of 8
                                          Friday, 9 October 2026
Neeta Sawant                                               903-WP-13506-2026.docx


15)            It is specifically clarified that except modifying the upset
price, this Court has not interfered in the auction process slated to be
conducted on 12 October 2026 in any manner and Respondent No.4
shall proceed to conduct the auction on 12 October 2026 as originally
planned.


16)            With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly
allowed and disposed of.




                                                  [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]




                                    PAGE NO. 8 of 8
                                  Friday, 9 October 2026