1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2666/2011 AWAJISIDDHA MAHARAJ NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA AND ANOTHER ..VS.. SPECIAL RECOVERY OFFICER Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri N.H. Patil, advocate for petitioner Shri R.L. Khapre, advocate for petitioners Shri D.P. Thakre,A G P for Collector Buldhana CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 05/12/2011. Heard. After some arguments Advocate Patil seeks leave to join Collector, Buldhana as party respondent. Leave granted. Learned A. G. P. waives notice for Collector, Buldhana. Shri Patil contends that as the petitioner no.2 is a successful auction purchaser, respondent has to recover possession from the debtor and hand it over to the petitioner no.2 in whose favour already a sale certificate is issued by respondent no.1. Shri Khapre, is pointing out provisions of Rule 107, Sub Rule (14) read with section 2 156 and Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Section 212 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to urge that after sale-certificate is issued, respondent no.1 has to again approach the office of the Collector for recovery of possession. Advocate Khapre states that there has to be a joint application by respondent no.1 and petitioner no.2. He further states that respondent no.1 will make appropriate application in that respect to respondent no.2 Collector within a period of 15 days from today and the respondent no.2 Collector should be directed to take further steps on that application forthwith. Shri Patil states that as respondent no.1 has sold the property, it is his obligation to put it in possession of petitioner no.2 and hence the application must be moved by respondent no.1 alone. The person who is actually in possession of the property purchased by petitioner no.2 is not party before us, hence in these circumstances we are not in a position to decide the controversy on merits. However, we 3 find that interests of justice can be met with by directing respondent no.1 to move appropriate application for delivery of possession to petitioner no.2 before respondent no.2 within a period of 10 days from today. If such application is moved, respondent - Collector shall consider the same in accordance with law and decide it as early as possible and in any case within further period of four weeks. With these directions we dispose of the petition with no order as to costs. Steno copy granted. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE SMP