The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of the land should be delivered in accordance with the provisions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules, and that the impugned order staying delivery of possession was not justified.

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalgaon. Vide the impugned order, the Additional District Magistrate has directed to stay handing over possession of the agricultural land (Gut No.96/1) to the petitioners herein until decision of Regular Civil Suit (R.C.S.) No.8 of 2008 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raver.

2. The petitioners have purchased the land Gut No.96/1 in a public auction held on 24.04.2017. One Rupali w/o Chetan Paratne had obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh) from

"The Bhusawal Peoples Co-operative Bank Limited" (respondent No.5 herein), way back in 2004. Shri Liladhar Laxman Bharambe, the father of Rupali, was the guarantor for the said loan. It appears that land Gut No.96/1 had been given by him as security for repayment of the loan. Since the borrower defaulted on the loan, the bank obtained Recovery Certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act of 1960') on 20.10.2005. The land Gut No.96/1 also came to be attached under Rule 107(10) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (for short 'the Rules') on 28.10.2005. The bank, after complying with the Rules, issued notice dated 20.03.2017 to both the borrower and the guarantor, informing that if the loan amount is not paid, the land would be sold in auction on 24.04.2017. Since the loan amount remained unpaid, the land came to be sold in public auction. Eight bidders had participated. The petitioners offered Rs.16,25,000/-. The bid of the petitioners came to be accepted as being the the highest one. It was over and above the price fixed by the District Deputy Registrar (DDR). The sale certificate was issued by the DDR on 23.04.2018. The sale came to be confirmed. The bank, on receipt of the entire sale consideration, executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners on 07.05.2018. The bank, thereafter, submitted the proposal to the District Magistrate for delivery of possession. The District Magistrate, on 31.05.2018, issued notice to the borrower and the guarantor to handover possession of the land. They remained absent. Possession, therefore, could not be handed over. The District Magistrate, vide his order dated 29.07.2019, passed the order with a direction to the Assistant Registrar, to handover possession of the land to the petitioners. The Additional District Magistrate, however, passed the impugned order dated 03.10.2019, staying delivery of possession, pending the decision of R.C.S. No.8 of 2008.

3. Shri V. D. Hon, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners would submit that both the borrower and the guarantor tried to stall delivery of possession of the land to the petitioners. They have been unsuccessful in their such attempts. The son and the wife of the guarantor filed the suit for restraining him from transferring the land. It was a collusive suit. In 2015, the suit was dismissed in default. The suit, however, came to be restored.

Interim order came to be passed, restraining the guarantor from transferring the land in whatsoever manner. Neither the petitioners nor the bank have been parties to the said suit. The order passed in the suit is therefore not binding on them. The possession of the land is to be delivered in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules. The Additional District Magistrate is subordinate to the District Magistrate. He should not have passed the impugned order, when the District Magistrate, vide his order dated 29.07.2019, had directed to handover possession of the land to the petitioners. The learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged for allowing the writ petition.

4. The learned AGP would support the impugned order.

5. Shri A. G. Talhar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.7 would, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner No.1 is the daughter of Ex-Chairman of the bank. Petitioner No.2 is th