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 :::
