D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an auction-purchaser of land bearing Khasra No. 28, area 4. 05 hectares. The agricultural land belonged to respondent No. 1 Aaildas Sindhi. who had taken a loan from co-operative society, named. St-wa Sabha. Danch registered under the M. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act' ). The respondent No. 1 as borrower raised objections to the auction and sale of the land mentioned above. The objection of the borrower was rejected and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the present petitioner as the auction-purchaser. The borrower then approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies by way of an appeal under Section 77 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the borrower has allowed by order dated 10. 8. 1977 {annexure M) and the auction and sale have been set aside. The auction-purchaser preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue, which by its order dated 5. 2. 1988 (Annexure O) has confirmed the order of the Joint Registrar. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner has assailed the order of the Joint Registrar dated 10. 8. 1987 (Annexure M) and that of the Board of Revenue dated 5. 2. 1988 (Annexure O ). ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has read the contents of the two orders before me and made his comments in the light of the other documents on record. The Joint Registrar set aside the auction and sale on the ground that the mode of recovery of dues by sale of charged property should have been first resorted to under Section 84 of the Act and recovery proceedings started under Section 85 were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Board of Revenue confirmed the order of the joint Registrar on the grounds mentioned above. In addition, the Board of revenue came to the conclusion that before effecting the recovery no valid notice was served on the borrower. The Society had taken a stand that proceedings under Section 84 of the Act were in fact initiated against the borrower but as the amount could not be recovered. resort to proceedings under Section 85 was made. The Board of Revenue directed the Assistant registrar to send the record of proceedings for recovery, if any, taken under section 84. The Society had taken a stand that proceedings under Section 84 of the Act were in fact initiated against the borrower but as the amount could not be recovered. resort to proceedings under Section 85 was made. The Board of Revenue directed the Assistant registrar to send the record of proceedings for recovery, if any, taken under section 84. In response thereto, a formal letter was sent by the Assistant registrar dated 26. 11. 1987 (Annexure A to the petition) to the Board of revenue. By that letter, it was informed to the Board of Revenue that the records concerning recovery proceedings under Section 84 are not traceable but some entries in the registers concerning recovery show that such proceedings were in fact taken. The Board of Revenue considered the nature of the above information supplied by the Assistant Registrar and from the circumstances on record of the case, came to the conclusion that no such proceedings under Section 84 for recovery were taken. The Board of Revenue also made adverse remarks against the recovery officer and auction-purchaser. It was observed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that the recovery Officer has not taken proceedings in a bona fide manner and his conduct exposed him to disciplinary action. The Board of Revenue, therefore, held that as no valid proceedings ior recovery under Section 84 were resorted to the proceedings for recovery under Section 85 of the Act were liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) SHRI Ashish Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that auction and sale concluded in favour of the petitioner has been set aside on grounds which were never specifically raised and urged by the borrower before the Joint Registrar and Board of Revenue. The other ground urged is that the borrower did not raise objection to the auction and sale within time and that he did not deposit the requisite money as required by sub-rule (4) of Rule 66 of the Rules framed under the Act. Reliance is also placed on behalf of the petitioner on sub-rule (5) of Rule 66, particularly the proviso, thereunder. A sale can be set aside only on the ground of irregularity or fraud resulting in substantial injury to the person concerned. ( 4 ) SHRI T. C. Naik, learned Counsel, appeared for the borrower (respondent No. 1 ). Reliance is also placed on behalf of the petitioner on sub-rule (5) of Rule 66, particularly the proviso, thereunder. A sale can be set aside only on the ground of irregularity or fraud resulting in substantial injury to the person concerned. ( 4 ) SHRI T. C. Naik, learned Counsel, appeared for the borrower (respondent No. 1 ). I have heard the Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 at length who took me through the various documents on record to state that the Joint Registrar and Board of Revenue were Justified in coming to the conclusion that no proceedings under Section 84 of the Act were resorted to before adopting the mode of recovery under Section 85, Shri C. L. Kotecha, learned Counsel appearing for the society (respondent No. 2) tried to support the petitioner's case. After a long time of filing of this petition, the respondent no. 2 filed a return and along with it also filed a copy of the application made by the borrower on 24. 4. 1984 (Annexure R-2/9 ). On the basis of the said application, on behalf of the society attempt was made to demonstrate that proceedings under Section 84 were in fact taken before initiating recovery proceedings under Section 85. The borrower on 24. 4. 1984 expressed his inability to pay the debt and sought time to make the payment and prayed for stay of the auction proceedings. According to the learned Counsel for the society, the above-mentioned letter was a circumstance to show that proceedings under Section 84 were taken although the record concerned was lost. Section 84 of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause indicating that before resorting to other modes of recovery, dues have first to be recovered from the charged property. The proviso to Section 84 requires service of a notice for recovery on the borrower before taking up coersive steps for recovery. Section 84 of the Act with the proviso thereunder needs reproduction and reads thus:"84. Enforcement of charge. Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter VII or any other law for the time being in force, but without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided in this Act, the Registrar or any person empowered by the Registrar in this behalf, may on an application of the society, and subject to such rules as State Government may make in this behalf. make an order directing the payment of any debt or outstanding demand due to the society by any member or. past or deceased member by attachment and sale or transfer by any other mode for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as the registrar or such other person may specify, of the property or any interest therein which is subject to a charge under sub-section (1) of Section 40, sub-section (1) of Section 41 and sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 42: provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the member, past member or nominee, heir or legal representative of the deceased member has been served with a notice of the application and has failed to pay the debt or outstanding demand within thirty days from the date of such service. " ( 5 ) SECTION 85 provided for the mode of execution of awards and orders passed by the authorities under the Act. The order of recovery is, on the basis of a certificate signed by the Registrar, to be executed as if it is a decree of the Civil Court. As there is a non-obstante clause in Section 84, the provisions of Section 85 should be resorted to only after exhausting the mode of recovery under Section 84 from the charged property. In the instant case, the society was unable to produce any record to prove that the mode of recovery under section 84 was adopted and exhausted. The record concerned, if any. was lost. The proviso to Section 84 requires service of notice before effecting recovery. No record has been produced to show that any such notice under section 84 was served on the borrower. The document filed by the society at such a belated stage in the return to show that some notice of recovery was served on the borrower cannot be considered at this stage and it is not of a conclusive character. No attempt was made by the society before the authorities under Act to prove that proceedings under Section 84 were in fact taken. ( 6 ) THE other ground urged on behalf of the petitioner that no objection was made to the auction and sale with requisite payment as required under sub-rule (4) of Rule 66 has also no merit. No attempt was made by the society before the authorities under Act to prove that proceedings under Section 84 were in fact taken. ( 6 ) THE other ground urged on behalf of the petitioner that no objection was made to the auction and sale with requisite payment as required under sub-rule (4) of Rule 66 has also no merit. The borrower had in fact raised written objection alleging collusion between the recovery officer and the auction-purchaser. He had complained of want of notice of any recovery proceedings. To support such an objection, even if the deposit was not make that did not prevent the appellate authority i. e. , the Joint Registrar and the board of Revenue to set aside the auction and sale on the ground that recovery under Section 85 of the Act was straightaway resorted to before proceeding against the charged property under Section 84 of the Act. Where a property was auctioned and sold without even service of any notice on the borrower and without taking up proceedings under Section 84 of the Act. a substantial injury was caused to the borrower as a natural consequence. The Joint registrar and the Board of Revenue, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error of jurisdiction or law in setting aside the auction and sale. There is no scope for interferring in the orders made by the Joint registrar and the Board of Revenue. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. Security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .