ARCHANA S PASHINE Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the orders made by the Revenue Authorities canceling the mutation entry taken in the Revenue record. The facts are relevant and material for deciding this petition are that:

(2.) The petitioner no. 1 was the secretary of a Co-operative Housing Society to the respondent no. 2. The society, it appears, by a registered sale deed, dt. 17-2-1994 transferred that plot to the petitioner no. 2 and an entry in the revenue record was made mutating her name in the place of name of respondent no. 2. That entry has been cancelled by the authorities. The Authorities have found that the day on which the sale deed was executed on behalf of the society by respondent no. 1 in favour of respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 1 was prohibited by the Registrar from functioning as a Secretary of the Society. The petitioner no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1. In substance, after he was prohibited by the Registrar from acting on behalf of the Society as a secretary, just a day prior to his handing over the charge of the office of Secretary, the petitioner no. 1 executed sale deed of a plot which was allotted by the Society and against which the respondent no. 2 had paid the amount in excess of Rs. 24,000/- to the Society. The petitioner no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1. The Revenue Authorities have found that the that the sale deed executed by petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner no. 2 is invalid because he had no authority to act on behalf of the society on 17-2-1994 and therefore, the mutation entry taken pursuant to the sale deed has been cancelled.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to record such a finding. They should have gone merely by Registered Sale deed and should not have disturbed the entry. According to the learned counsel, the remedy available for respondent no. 2 to get the sale deed executed by the society in favour of petitioner no. 2 cancelled was to approach the Co-operative Court u/s. 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. According to the learned counsel, the Revenue Authorities should have assumed that jurisdiction and made the impugned order. It is no doubt true that there is some substance in the submission that the learned counsel is making. But in my opinion, in exercise if the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the present petition cannot be entertained.