W.P.No.5901 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5901 OF 2011 Shri Hariram Vensimal Bharwani .. Petitioner Versus Santoshimata Credit Co-operative Society Bhusawal and ors. .. Respondents Mr Sanket S.Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner Mr P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr N.B.Patil, AGP for respondents 2 and 3 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28th November 2011 PER COURT 1. Heard Mr Kulkarni, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner impugns the mutation entry No.9278 creating charge of Rs.15 lacs and mutation entry No.9888 creating charge of Rs. 8,00,828/- on land Gut No.169. Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the original loan was Rs.8 lacs and the respondent does not have an authority to create such a charge of huge amount on his property. The learned Counsel further contends that the respondent is not coming forth with the extract of account and not submitting the same. Because of such acts of respondent, the petitioner lacks to know the W.P.No.5901 of 2011 2 exact amount due and the legality of the alleged amount due. It is only if the extract is produced and given to the petitioner, then petitioner would know the extent of the interest charged; so also its rate. If the respondent comes out with the legitimate amount due, the petitioner would be able to settle the matter. 3. Shri Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that as on today more than Rs.37 lacs are due against the petitioner. Even the recovery certificate is issued by the competent authority. In fact, the petitioner has an alternate remedy to challenge such mutation entries. 4. If the recovery certificate has been issued and the same has attained finality, then the parties would be governed by the amount as culled out by the authority issuing the said recovery certificate. In such circumstances, the only question would remain of the amount being claimed by the respondent, whether the same is in tune with the recovery certificate. 5. Shri Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that if the petitioner files an application with the Bank and on payment of necessary charges the Bank would give the extract of account to the petitioner immediately. W.P.No.5901 of 2011 3 6. So far mutation entry is concerned, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the same. 7. In light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent - Bank shall give the extract of account to the petitioner within 15 days on depositing of requisite charges for the said extract of account and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the mutation entries, the petitioner may take recourse to the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) (vvr/5901.11wp)