1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondents.

2. On 22nd August, 2011, the notice for final disposal of this Petition was issued.

3. The controversy involved in this Petition is very narrow. The Petitioner is a Credit Society duly registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). A Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the said Act was obtained by the Petitioner against a borrower. The property of the defaulter was attached in execution of the Recovery Certificate. On 26th October, 2009, the first Respondent the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies passed an order under Section 100 of the said Act read with Rule 85(5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”) by which the first Respondent transferred the attached property to the Petitioner.

4. By the impugned order dated 9th November, 2011, the Collector, Satara passed an order in purported exercise of powers under Section 100 of the said Act by which he directed that the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies shall execute a registered document of transfer of the said property to the Petitioner and shall recover stamp duty in accordance with Article 25 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1958”) from the Petitioner. The Collector directed that the stamp duty under Article 25 of the said Act of 1958 will be payable on the market value of the property or the amount due and payable under the Recovery Certificate, whichever is more. The challenge in this Petition is to this order.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of BalkisanManekchand Zaver & Others v. Jalgaon People’s Cooperative Bank Ltd., through Manager & Others, (1998(3) Bom.C.R. 70). He submitted that the transfer of the property in accordance with Section 100 of the said Act does not amount to a sale or conveyance and, therefore, Article 25 of Schedule I of the said Act of 1958 is not attracted. He submitted that on the transfer under Section 100 of the said Act, the Petitioner will hold the property only as a Trustee. He invited attention of the Court to Section 100 of the said Act and the Rule 85 of the said Rules. He submitted that in any case, direction to pay stamp duty cannot be issued in exercise of power under Section 100 of the said Act.

6. The learned AGP submitted that the effect of order under Section 100(1) of the said Act is that the property stands transferred to the Petitioner and in effect, there is a sale of the property in favour of the Petitioner. The learned AGP submitted that no interference is called for.

7. I have considered the submissions. Section 100 of the said Act reads thus:

“100. Transfer of property which cannot be sold.

(1) When in any execution of an order sought to be executed under section 98 [or in the recovery of any amount under section 101 or section 137], any property cannot be sold for want of buyers, if such property is in occupancy of the defaulter, or of some person in his behalf, or of some person claiming under a title created by the defaulter subsequently to the issue of the certificate of the Registrar; [Court], Liquidator or the Assistant Registrar, under clause (a) or (b) of section 98, [or under section 191 or 137], the Court or the Collector or the Registrar as the case may be, may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, direct that the said property or any portion thereof, shall be transferred to the society which has applied for the execution of the said order, in the manner prescribed.

(2) Where property is transferred to the society under the foregoing subsection or where property is sold under section 98 [101 or 137], the Court Collector, or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, in accordance with the rules, place the