JUDGMENT

N J Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the counsels for the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 12th April 2019 in Revision Application No.NIL/2011 passed by Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik, whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the recovery certificate issued under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 ('The Act, 1961') and the steps taken by respondent No.3-Society and respondent No.4, the Recovery Officer, to recover the amount thereunder, culminating in the order of confirmation of sale dated 31st March 2012 of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 49, ('the subject land') in favour of respondent Nos. 8 and 9-the Auction Purchasers, came to be dismissed.

3. The background facts leading to this petition can be summarized as under :-

(a) The petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from Purnavad Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Shirsoli - respondent No.3-Society. The loan was advanced on the terms and conditions incorporated in the sanction letter dated 18th October 2005. It was to be repaid within a period of 60 months thereof. Under the terms thereof, the petitioner and his father mortgaged an immovable property bearing House No.728 in favour of respondent No.3 under a Mortgage Deed, dated 21st Octoer, 2005 and thereby created security interest thereon.

(b) A part of loan amount, however, remained outstanding. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner became aware of steps having been initiated by the respondent No.3 and Recovery Officer-respondent No.4, to recover the outstanding amount only when a notice of auction sale was published in the newspaper by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 6 th September 2011. Thereupon, the petitioner claimed to have gathered relevant information.

(c) It transpired that the respondent No.3 had preferred an application on 8th October 2009 for grant of certificate under section 101 of the Act, 1961 though the entire amount had not fallen due. The District Deputy Registrar, Jalgaon-respondent No.7 issued the recovery certificate on 9th December 2009 in a mechanical manner without complying with the mandatory requirement of passing a reasoned order, in clear violation of Rule 86-A to 86-F of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 ('Rules, 1961'). Armed with the said certificate, a demand notice was issued purportedly under Rule 107 of the Rules. Again, the demand notice did not comply with the requirements postulated by Rule 107(3) read with Rule 107(11)(b). The exact amount which was due and payable by the petitioner was not indicated therein, nor the outstanding interest was specifically mentioned. Even the particulars of the property which was proposed to be attached and sold in the event of default in payment of the due amount were not furnished.

(d) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 proceeded to sell valuable subject land without following the statutory requirements. The petitioner asserts that in the face of the provisions contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 107, it was incumbent upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to proceed against the mortgaged property, wherein security interest was created. There was thus no occasion for respondent Nos.3 and 4 to straightaway proceed against the subject land, which was not a mortgaged property. The auction was also in breach of sub-rule (10) of Rule 107 as the subject land was not at all attached before it was put on the block. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 sold the subject land illegally without prior attachment as envisaged under Rule 107(10) read with sub-rule 11(d).

(e) The respondent Nos.3 and 4, according to the petitioner, made a farce of auction sale on 18th October 2011. The subject land which admeasures 1 Hector and 31 Arc was sold for a throw away price of Rs.21,01,000/- to respo