The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of administrative law: revisional authorities cannot overturn concurrent factual findings by subordinate bodies merely because they would have decided differently. This judgment clarifies the limited, supervisory nature of revisional powers under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and reinforces the sanctity of evidence-based adjudication in member expulsion cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a long-standing member of a farming co-operative society, faced expulsion proceedings initiated by the Managing Committee in 2016. The charges alleged unauthorised construction on his plot and that of his wife, including a compound wall and a chawl allegedly built in 1990 - 1991. The Society claimed these acts violated its bye-laws and constituted conduct detrimental to its interests under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Procedural History
The case progressed through three tiers of adjudication:
- 2016: Managing Committee passed resolution for expulsion.
- 2017: Assistant Registrar, after reviewing the Circle Officer’s inspection report, declined approval for expulsion, finding no unauthorised permanent construction.
- 2019: Divisional Joint Registrar in Appeal dismissed the Society’s appeal, holding the Society’s record was fabricated and the notice defective.
- 2021: Minister of State for Co-operation, exercising revisional powers under Section 154, set aside both orders and directed the Collector to inquire into alleged breach of lease conditions under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the revisional order, arguing that the Minister overstepped statutory limits by substituting factual findings and initiating proceedings under an entirely different statutory regime.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a revisional authority under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, can set aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate authorities and direct revenue authorities to initiate proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, without establishing legal error or perversity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 35 requires conduct to be demonstrably detrimental to the society’s functioning, not merely technically non-compliant. The inspection report by the Circle Officer, accepted by both subordinate authorities, conclusively established that only agricultural structures - a poly-house and vegetable cultivation - were present. The allegation of a chawl built in 1990 - 1991 surfaced only in 2018, undermining its relevance to the 2016 expulsion notice. The revisional authority, they contended, had no jurisdiction to convert a co-operative dispute into a land revenue matter.
For the Respondent
The Society and State argued that the petitioner had alienated rooms in the chawl to third parties and used the plot for non-agricultural purposes, thereby breaching lease conditions imposed by the Collector in 1964. They submitted that the revisional authority was empowered to act in the public interest to safeguard Government land and that the concurrent findings were based on incomplete or biased evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the statutory architecture governing co-operative societies and land revenue. It held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 is strictly supervisory and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute factual conclusions. The Court emphasized that concurrent findings, especially when grounded in primary evidence like an official inspection report, are entitled to high deference.
"The revisional power must be exercised within constitutional limits and consistent with settled administrative law. Where subordinate authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact after considering inspection reports and documents, interference by revisional power requires strong justification."
The Court found no evidence that the Assistant Registrar or Appellate Authority acted with jurisdictional error, ignored mandatory provisions, or reached a perverse conclusion. The revisional order failed to identify any such defect. Instead, it relied on suspicion and broad governance concerns to justify interference.
Crucially, the Court drew a bright line between the domains of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. While the former governs internal society affairs and member discipline, the latter exclusively regulates lease enforcement on Government land. The revisional authority, the Court held, cannot assume the role of a revenue officer.
"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 Court rejected the notion that suspicion or general misgivings about governance justify bypassing statutory procedures. Proof, not suspicion, must drive action that deprives a member of rights.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Bombay High Court quashed the revisional order of 30 June 2021, restored the concurrent findings of the Assistant Registrar and Appellate Authority, and held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 cannot override factual findings absent legal error or perversity. The Court clarified that allegations of lease breach must be adjudicated exclusively under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Concurrent Findings Are Presumptively Valid
- Practitioners must treat concurrent findings by subordinate authorities as binding unless proven perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence.
- Revision petitions under Section 154 should focus on jurisdictional flaws or procedural illegality, not factual re-appreciation.
- Courts will not entertain revisional interference merely because the higher authority disagrees with the outcome.
Statutory Boundaries Cannot Be Ignored
- Co-operative societies and land revenue are governed by distinct statutory regimes with exclusive jurisdictions.
- A revisional authority under the Co-operative Societies Act cannot initiate or direct proceedings under the Land Revenue Code.
- Any attempt to merge these domains invites judicial invalidation and violates the principle of non-overlapping statutory schemes.
Fabrication of Records Undermines Credibility
- Where subordinate authorities find evidence of fabrication in the complainant’s record, that finding is decisive.
- Petitioners in expulsion cases should highlight inconsistencies, delayed allegations, and lack of contemporaneous documentation.
- Societies must ensure disciplinary proceedings are based on verifiable, timely, and credible evidence - not retrospective accusations.
