Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 9 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Ms. Sejal Feeds (Petitioner) vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Department of Co‑operation and others, including Respondent Nos. 4‑5 (Bank).
  • Petition: Writ Petition No. 13506 of 2026 challenging the order dated 12 August 2026 of the Divisional Joint Registrar (DJR), Nashik Division, which dismissed Revision Application No. 107/2026 and confirmed the District Deputy Registrar’s (DDR) order dated 27 March 2026 fixing the upset price of the mortgaged property at Rs.3,84,23,000.
  • Valuation Dispute: DDR relied on a valuation report of Mr. Gunwant L. Chaudhari, a government‑approved valuer, who applied a unit rate of Rs.2,750 per sq.m for 13,972 sq.m of land, arriving at Rs.3,84,23,000 and excluded the residential bungalow on the ground that it was under proposed road widening.
  • Petitioner’s Position: Relied on a valuation by Srujan Architects (Mr. Sarang G. Patil) indicating a market value of Rs.12,22,82,000 and argued that the upset price violated the Third Proviso to Rule 107(11)(f) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act Rules, 1961, which requires the Registrar to consider comparative market prices, ready‑reckoner rates, and valuation from an approved valuer.
  • Legal Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner contended that the DDR should have obtained an independent valuation and that the bungalow’s value of Rs.41,04,000 (240 sq.m) was improperly omitted. The respondent’s counsel suggested adding the bungalow value to the upset price, raising it to Rs.4,25,27,000.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court observed that the valuation relied upon was by a government‑approved valuer, satisfying the proviso; the valuer had conducted an independent site visit and did not merely copy the 2021 Nabhangan Engineers report. The exclusion of the bungalow was noted, but no evidence was presented that the bungalow lay in a road‑widening area. The Court accepted the suggestion to add Rs.41,04,000 for the bungalow, resulting in a revised upset price of Rs.4,25,27,000.
  • Procedural History: The petitioner and relatives had previously filed multiple writ petitions (e.g., Writ Petition No. 2267 of 2025, No. 7758 of 2026, No. 8721 of 2026) seeking to delay or block the sale, all of which were dismissed or repelled.

Final Outcome

  • The upset price is modified from Rs.3,84,23,000 to Rs.4,25,27,000.
  • Respondent No. 4 (Recovery Officer) shall issue a corrigendum to the proclamation of sale reflecting the revised upset price.
  • A notice indicating the revised upset price shall be published in newspapers on 10 October 2026.
  • The auction of the mortgaged property shall proceed on 12 October 2026 as originally scheduled; the Court does not interfere with the auction process beyond the price modification.
  • The writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

Topics: Valuation Dispute, Co‑operative Society Property Sale