1. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. It appears that the three writ petitioners took a loan for purchase of a tractor in the year 1998. The loan amount was Rs. 2,15,000/-. There was default in payment of instalments, because of which proceedings were taken under section 14(1), (4) of the M. P. Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). The tractor which had been purchased by the loan was attached and sold to the respondent No. 3 of this writ petition in the year 2000.

3. Subsequently, the writ petitioner preferred a revision before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society. The revision was preferred under section 80-A of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which empowers the Registrar or his delegate not below Joint Registrar to have the usual revisional power with regard to any inquiry, proceedings or decisions, obviously under the 1960 Act and not under other enactments.

4. On the other hand, section 21 of the Adhiniyam (as contra distinguished from the Act of 1960) provides that if no application is made to set aside the sale or if an application is made and disallowed under section 20 of the Adhiniyam, an order will be passed confirming the sale and such confirmation shall become absolute. The 1960 Act cannot override the 1966 Adhiniyam. Both operate in separate fields and therefore, a sale which has been confirmed and become absolute under section 21 of the 1966 Adhiniyam is not amenable to revisional power under section 80-A of the 1960 Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings from the stage of filing the revision are non est.

5. To continue with the facts the Joint Registrar by the order dated 25-7- 2006 set aside the sale in exercise of powers under section 80-A of the 1960 Act. That order dated 25-7-2006 passed by the Joint Registrar has been set aside by the M. P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal in a Revision No. 249/06 by the impugned order dated 13-4-2009. The illegal order which has been set

aside should not be restored in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.