A registered agreement establishing a beneficial interest in property cannot be unilaterally cancelled by notice. Revisional authorities in recovery proceedings lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity or subsistence of such instruments, as these disputes fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts.

JUDGMENT:

1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Bank challenges legality and validity of the Judgment and Order dated 21 January 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies-2, Mumbai in Revision Application No.190 of 2024 filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 setting aside order dated 18 May 2024 passed by the Special Recovery Officer in exercise of powers under Rule 107 (19) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (“MCS Rules”).

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner–Bank challenges the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 21 January 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies–2, Mumbai in Revision Application No. 190 of 2024 filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. By the said judgment, the Revisional Authority set aside the order dated 18 May 2024 passed by the Special Recovery Officer under Rule 107 (19) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 .

3. The facts giving rise to the petition are these. On 18 October 2011, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 executed a registered Development Agreement with respondent No. 6 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,13,00,000 to be paid in the manner prescribed in clause 11 of the agreement. Clause 12 of the agreement conferred on respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (developers) the right to sell and dispose of the units, tenements, and other components of the proposed development on such terms, conditions, and prices as they deemed fit. The developers were authorized to execute all necessary documents for the sale and to receive and retain the consideration as their own. Clause 13 granted to the developers an irrevocable licence of ingress, egress, and regress to the property for carrying out development work as agreed.

4. The petitioner–Bank had extended cash credit facilities to respondent No. 7 through its partners, respondent Nos. 8 to 11, who were the principal borrowers. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 also stood as personal guarantors. Upon default, the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset, and the petitioner initiated recovery proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 .

5. On 8 July 2022, the Registrar issued a recovery certificate against M/s. APT Infratech Solutions LLP (respondent No. 7) and its guarantors (respondent Nos. 8 to 11). On 7 September 2022, in exercise of powers under Rule 107 (11) of the MCS Rules, the Special Recovery Officer issued a warrant attaching the rights and interest of respondent Nos. 7 to 11 in the property described as Plot No. 209-D of Dadar Matunga Estate, Survey No. 188C/10 of Matunga Division, along with building and structure situated at Vincent Road/Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai–400014.

6. On 7 April 2023, respondent Nos. 4 and 5, claiming to be the original owners of the property, filed an objection under Rule 107 (19) before the Special Recovery Officer. The ob