1wp-1813-09 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.1813 OF 2009 M/s Paranjape Construction Co.& Ors...Petitioners. vs. The Collector & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr V.P. Sawant i/b V.M. Bhate for the Petitioners. Mr V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P.,for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K.TATED,JJ DATED: 16TH NOVEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner basically challenges auction of his property under the order 2wp-1813-09 of the Collector by the Tahsildar. The auction was held on 11.9.2008. So far as the competence of the Collector to auction the property is concerned, we have already held by our order dated 16.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.6374 of 2008 that the Collector has power to execute even the recovery certificate issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. We found that though the petition challenges auction held by the Tahsildar, the Individuals and Soceities, for the benefit of whom the auction was held by the Tahsildar, have not been joined as parties. The property was being auctioned for making recovery pursuant to the decree passed by the Consumers Forum in favour of several persons, as also pursuant to a recovery certificate issued in favour of Co- operative Bank. They have not been added as parties to this petition. The petition, therefore suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. We found from the reply, filed by the Tahsildar, that a representative of the petitioner was present at the 3wp-1813-09 site of auction who has raised one objection to the auction which was accepted by the Tahsildar. But the petition totally suppresses that the petitioner s representative remained present at the time of auction sale and raised only one objection which is up held by the Tahsildar. In our opinion, the petitioner, therefore, is guilty of suppressing necessary and relevant facts. 2. It is further to be seen that the petitioner is aggrieved by the auction notice issued in the month of August, 2008 according to which the auction was to be held on 11.9.2008, but the petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition on 26.11.2008. In our opinion, in these facts and circumstances, it will not be proper to entertain this petition, because even if it is assumed that there are some irregularities committed by the Tahsildar in holding the auction, that will be an error within the jurisdiction which can be agitated by the petitioner in appeal, that is provided by the Land Revenue Code against the order 4wp-1813-09 of the Tahsildar and other authorities under the Land Revenue Code. Looking to the matter from any point of view, we do not find any reason to interfere with the auction proceedings. Petition is hereby rejected. Civil Application, if any, is disposed of. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (K.K.TATED,J)