RAMONA ALOYSIUS FURTADO Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 bank to restore the possession of the flat bearing no. 101, on the 1st floor, admeasuring 1040 sq.ft. + 18.58 sq.mtrs. open terrace described in paragraph (1) of the petition and for other reliefs.

(2.) By an order dtd. 2/11/2018 passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No.1691 of 2018 filed by the petitioner, this court recorded the statement made by the petitioner that the petitioner would approach the Recovery Officer of the respondent no.2 bank and file claim/objection and/or challenge the possession notice dtd. 1/8/2017 as well a action of the respondent no.2 bank qua rights, title, interest accrued to her under the said registered agreement for sale dtd. 19/5/2003 by 7/12/2018. The respondent no.2 agreed before this court that the ad-interim order passed by this court in respect of the said flat shall continue and they shall not take physical possession or any coercive action against said flat of the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 14 th December,2017 as well as notice dated 1 st February, 2018 issued by Mandal Adhikari, Panvel. This court made it clear that in case of any adverse order passed by the Recovery Officer of the respondent no.2, the said interim protection shall continue for a period of one month from the date of communication of the said order to the petitioner.

(3.) It is the case of the respondent no.2 that pursuant to the said order passed by the Division Bench, the Recovery Officer of the respondent no.2 has passed an order on the said objection filed by the petitioner under Rule 107(19) (a) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 rejecting the said objection. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order passed by the Recovery Officer has not been served upon the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that without effecting the service of the said order, the respondent no.2 took forcible possession of the flat in question on 26/6/2019.