Bombay High Court
Gulabrao Baburao Karanjule vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Dept. Of ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:9184
24-wp-8424-2021.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8424 OF 2021
Gulabrao Baburao Karanjule ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. P. D. Dalvi, for the Petitioner.
SHABNOOR
AYUB
PATHAN Mr. Rupesh R. Lanjekar, for Respondent No.4.
Digitally signed
by SHABNOOR
AYUB PATHAN
Mr. K. B. Dighe, Addl. GP with Ms. Mamta Shrivastava,
Date: 2026.02.23
19:29:55 +0530 AGP, for the State - Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 23, 2026
P.C.:
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 30 June 2021 passed by the Minister of State for Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 258 of 2019, to the extent it sets aside the order dated 28 February 2019 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 12 May 2017 passed by respondent No. 3.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner has been a member of respondent No. 4 Society for more than 35 years. Respondent No. 4 is a farming co-operative society to which Government land has been allotted for agricultural and allied activities in accordance with its bye-laws.
1 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 :::24-wp-8424-2021.doc On 15 September 2016, the Managing Committee of respondent No. 4 issued a notice under Rules 28 and 29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 read with Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be expelled in the Special General Body Meeting scheduled on 23 October 2016. The notice alleged that the petitioner had erected a compound wall on his plot as well as on the adjoining plot standing in the name of his wife, which was treated by the Managing Committee as permanent and unauthorised construction.
3. The notice further alleged that the petitioner had lodged false and frivolous complaints against the Society, thereby bringing disrepute to it, and that such conduct rendered him liable for expulsion. The statement of charges was annexed to the notice. The petitioner appeared before the Special General Body Meeting held on 23 October 2016 and denied the allegations, contending that no unauthorised construction had been carried out and that approaching the Co-operative Court for redressal of disputes was a statutory remedy available to him as a member and could not amount to defamation. Notwithstanding the said defence, the Managing Committee recorded proceedings indicating that a resolution for expulsion had been passed and thereafter sought approval of the Assistant Registrar.
4. The Assistant Registrar, upon examining the record and considering the inspection report submitted by the Circle Officer, found that no illegal construction existed on the site. The inspection report dated 2 January 2017 recorded that the 2 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 ::: 24-wp-8424-2021.doc petitioner had cultivated vegetables and erected a poly-house for agricultural purposes and that no unauthorised construction was noticed. Consequently, by order dated 12 May 2017, the Assistant Registrar declined to grant approval to the resolution of expulsion.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Society preferred an appeal under Section 152 of the Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar in Appeal No. 71 of 2017. By order dated 28 February 2019, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, holding inter alia that the Society had prepared a fabricated record to justify expulsion, that the Circle Officer's inspection report established absence of unauthorised construction, and that the notice issued by the Managing Committee suffered from material defects.
6. The Society thereafter preferred Revision Application No. 258 of 2019 before the Minister of State for Co-operation. By order dated 30 June 2021, the revisional authority partly allowed the revision, set aside the concurrent orders passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and directed the Collector to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the Society.
7. The present Writ Petition, therefore, assails the legality and propriety of the aforesaid revisional order insofar as it interferes with concurrent findings recorded by the subordinate authorities in favour of the petitioner. The principal issue that arises for determination is whether, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Minister of State for Co-operation was justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact recorded by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 :::24-wp-8424-2021.doc
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 does not contemplate expulsion of a member of a farming co- operative society merely on the allegation of construction undertaken without prior permission of the Society. It was further submitted that the allegation regarding creation of third-party rights by constructing a chawl during the years 1990-1991 has surfaced only in the report under Section 88 of the Act dated 11 March 2018. According to the petitioner, the revisional authority, while exercising powers under Section 154 of the Act, could not have directed the Collector to initiate proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, since the question of breach of lease conditions is required to be adjudicated by the competent authority under the said Code.
9. It was further submitted that the petitioner had erected a poultry shed on the plot allotted to him and that notices alleging illegal construction were issued for extraneous and political considerations. The petitioner contends that apart from construction of a compound wall in the year 2007, no other construction was carried out by him. The alleged chawl construction during 1990-1991, according to the petitioner, was undertaken by three other persons and not at his instance. It is, therefore, contended that the acts attributed to the petitioner do not constitute conduct detrimental to the interests or proper functioning of the Society so as to attract Section 35 of the Act. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned revisional order.
4 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 :::24-wp-8424-2021.doc
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Society submitted that the petitioner had unauthorisedly raised structures and alienated rooms in the chawl to third parties. It was contended that although the petitioner claimed to have commenced a poultry farm, the plot was never utilised for agricultural purposes. According to the Society, if the petitioner intended to protect the property from anti-social elements, he ought to have obtained prior permission from the competent authority before raising any construction. It was further submitted that the petitioner's acts amounted to breach of the lease conditions imposed by the Collector under order dated 23 June 1964. Consequently, the State Government, while exercising revisional powers under Section 154 of the Act, was justified in issuing directions to the competent authority under the Land Revenue Code for safeguarding Government land. On these submissions, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.
Reasons and analysis:
11. Section 35 of the Co-operative Societies Act deals with expulsion of members. The Act and the Rules require procedural fairness before a member may be expelled. Section 152 provides an appeal. Section 154 furnishes revisional power to the State. Revisional power is supervisory. It exists to correct illegality, manifest error, or jurisdictional excess. It does not exist to reweigh evidence simply because the revisional authority would reach a different factual conclusion. Where subordinate authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact after considering inspection reports and documents, interference by revisional power requires 5 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 ::: 24-wp-8424-2021.doc strong justification. The revisional power must be exercised within constitutional limits and consistent with settled administrative law.
12. A member's conduct must be shown to be detrimental to the society or contrary to the bye-laws in a manner that attracts Section 35. The mere fact of some construction does not automatically make the conduct expellable. The Assistant Registrar considered the inspection report by the Circle Officer. That report records cultivation of vegetables and erection of a poly-house used for agriculture. The Assistant Registrar recorded that no illegal permanent construction was found. The Appellate Authority later examined the appeal record and affirmed that conclusion after noting defects in the Society's record. Those concurrent findings rest on primary evidence in the form of the inspection report. Absent a strong reason to reject that evidence, the findings deserve respect.
13. The charge of creation of third party rights by a chawl allegedly built in 1990-1991 first appears in a report under Section 88 dated 11 March 2018. That chronology weakens any claim that the petitioner's conduct during 2016 justified immediate expulsion on those grounds. Allegations based on remote events must still be supported by contemporaneous records showing the petitioner's involvement and ownership. The record presently before this Court does not show that the petitioner himself created third party rights in the relevant period. The Appellate Authority found that the Society's record was fabricated to justify expulsion. That finding is relevant. Fabrication of record, if established, corrodes the credibility of the Society's case.
6 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 :::24-wp-8424-2021.doc
14. If the petitioner indeed alienated rooms and created third party rights in breach of lease, that conduct would be serious. Likewise, if the plot was used for non-agricultural purposes over a sustained period, that fact would bear on any disciplinary action. The Society's narrative, however, relies on proof. The Appellate Authority specifically found fabrication in the Society's record and accepted the Circle Officer's inspection report. In such circumstances, the Court cannot accept the Society's allegations without independent material demonstrating a different factual matrix. The fact that the revisional authority suspected impropriety is not by itself conclusive of a breach. Suspicion must give way to proof in administrative or adjudicatory action that removes a member's rights.
15. I address the correctness of the revisional order. The revisional order set aside the concurrent findings of the Assistant Registrar and the Appellate Authority. It did so despite those authorities recording that the Circle Officer's inspection found no unauthorised permanent construction and that the Society's record contained anomalies. The revisional authority is empowered to correct illegality. But interference with concurrent factual findings calls for clear demonstration that the findings were perverse, made in total disregard of material evidence, or tainted by jurisdictional error. The revisional order does not identify such a defect in the findings. Instead the revisional order records concerns about broader governance in the Society and directs the Collector to inquire into the affairs of the Society under the Land Revenue Code. The authority to inquire into the affairs of a co-operative 7 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 ::: 24-wp-8424-2021.doc society is not identical to the authority to order revenue adjudication on lease breaches. The revisional order blurs that distinction.
16. On the material before this Court, the Assistant Registrar relied on the Circle Officer's inspection and recorded that the petitioner cultivated vegetables and erected a poly-house. The Appellate Authority examined the record and found the Society's case lacking and the notice defective. Those conclusions qualify as concurrent findings supported by evidence on the file. The revisional order did not show that those findings were perverse or legally unsustainable. The direction to the Collector to conduct an inquiry therefore represents an overreach in the present factual matrix.
17. The scope of power available to the Revisional Authority under Section 154 is limited and well defined. The Revisional Authority does not sit as a court of first instance. It is not expected to re conduct factual inquiry or to assume powers which the statute has conferred upon another authority. The purpose of revision is supervisory. The authority is required to examine whether the order under challenge suffers from legal error, whether the decision is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Rules framed thereunder, or the bye-laws governing the society. If the subordinate authority has acted without jurisdiction, ignored mandatory provisions, or passed an order contrary to law, the Revisional Authority can interfere. Beyond this limited scrutiny, it cannot enlarge its role.
8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 :::24-wp-8424-2021.doc
18. When the statute itself draws clear boundaries, those boundaries must be respected. The Co-operative Societies Act governs internal management of societies, rights and obligations of members, and disputes arising within that framework. The Revisional Authority functioning under Section 154 must therefore confine itself to examining whether the authorities below correctly applied the provisions of the Act and Rules. It may test legality. It may examine procedural fairness. It may correct patent error. But it cannot convert revisional jurisdiction into a fresh adjudication on matters that fall under a different statutory regime.
19. The question, whether there is breach of lease conditions stands on an entirely different footing. Lease conditions relating to Government land arise from orders passed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Enforcement of such conditions involves revenue administration. The Land Revenue Code creates its own machinery, defines the competent authorities, and prescribes the procedure for inquiry, hearing, and determination of breach. These powers are not incidental or overlapping. They are specific powers vested in revenue officers who exercise jurisdiction under that Code.
20. Therefore, once the issue shifts from internal affairs of the co-operative society to alleged violation of lease conditions imposed by the State, the matter moves outside the field of the Co- operative Societies Act. The authority competent to decide such issue is the authority designated under the Land Revenue Code. Only such authority can examine the nature of the lease, the terms and conditions, the alleged breach, the factual position on the 9 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 ::: 24-wp-8424-2021.doc ground, and the consequences that may follow. Any decision on this aspect must come after following the procedure contemplated under the Land Revenue Code. A revisional authority under the Co-operative Societies Act cannot assume that role.
21. Statutory schemes are designed to avoid overlapping powers. If authorities under the Co-operative Societies Act start deciding questions reserved for revenue authorities, it will create uncertainty and conflicting decisions. A member or a society would then face findings by an authority that has no expertise or statutory mandate to adjudicate land revenue issues. Such an approach would also bypass safeguards available under the Land Revenue Code, including notice, evidence, and adjudication by competent officers.
22. Hence, while the Revisional Authority can examine whether the order under challenge is consistent with the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, Rules and bye-laws, it cannot go beyond that boundary. The issue of breach of lease conditions remains exclusively within the domain of authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Any action on that ground must originate and be decided only under that Code.
23. For these reasons, I find that the revisional order dated 30 June 2021 deserves interference. The parts of the revisional order which set aside the findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar and the Appellate Authority and which directed the Collector to undertake an inquiry into the affairs of the Society must be quashed. The concurrent findings recorded by the Assistant 10 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 ::: 24-wp-8424-2021.doc Registrar and by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Appeal No. 71 of 2017 remain in force. The resolution of expulsion, which the Assistant Registrar declined to approve, therefore stands without the revisional order's intrusion. If the State or the Society possesses fresh, independent, and admissible material that reasonably suggests breach of lease conditions or diversion of Government land, that body may initiate proper proceedings under the Land Revenue Code before the competent revenue authority. Such proceedings must follow the statutory process prescribed under the Land Revenue Code and must not be pre-empted by a revisional order under the Co-operative Societies Act.
24. In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:
25. The Writ Petition is allowed.
26. The judgment and order dated 30 June 2021 passed by the Minister of State for Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 258 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.
27. The orders dated 12 May 2017 passed by the Assistant Registrar and dated 28 February 2019 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar stand restored.
28. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 11 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:37:51 :::