AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
Heard learned counsel Mr. Jadhavar appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Sabnis for Respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P for Respondent No.2/State.
By way of the present petition, the petitioner questions the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 in Revision Application No.04 of 2021 whereby, the respondent No.2 allowed the revision filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of The Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’ ).
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 was doing a money lending business and pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was initiated by the authorities under the Act. In inquiry total 12 transactions were found which also included the transaction of the petitioner. As numerous similar type of transactions were found in the inquiry, it clearly reveals that, respondent No.1 was doing money lending business without having any license.
He would further submit that the petitioner was having a nominal transaction with respondent no.1 in respect of money lending business. In fact petitioner is in possession of property and also the revenue record showed that the property is in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has also received the crop insurance and government aid on the said property, which clearly reveals that property was not mutated in the name of Respondent No.1. In pursuance of application filed by the petitioner, the District Deputy Registrar noticed that there were total 12 suspicious transactions and directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct an inquiry and submit report thereon. The Assistant Registrar submitted the report but the District Deputy Registrar found that the said report was incomplete and therefore, directed again to Assistant Registrar to submit a report alongwith self-explanatory opinion of Assistant Registrar with regard to the money-lending transactions.
In pursuance to which, the Assistant Registrar examined the sale-deeds and revenue record of the Tahsil office and found that respondent No.1 had not applied for mutation of his name in the revenue record. The Assistant Registrar opined that the respondent No.1 was engaged in illegal money-lending business and submitted the report to the District Deputy Registrar.
Based on the report of Assistant Registrar, the District Deputy Registrar passed an order dated 28.11.2018 thereby declaring the sale-deed dated 18.01.2008 bearing No.39 of 2008 as illegal and cancelled the same and directed the respondent No.1 to return the land to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of District Deputy Registrar, the respondent No.1 filed appeal before Divisional Joint Registrar who confirmed the order of District Deputy Registrar vide its order dated 17.06.2020 passed in Appeal No.16 of 2019. Respondent No.1 further filed revision before the Registrar General of money-lenders who set-aside the orders passed by District Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar.
Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that Registrar General of money-lenders did not record any findings while setting-aside the orders of District Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar. He submits that the order was clearly unreasoned one and vague in nature and therefore, prayed to allow the present petition thereby setting-aside the order passed by Registrar General of money-lenders.
Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Sabnis, for respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by pointing out that transactions which were considered by the enquiry officer did not reveal of money lending business. When the Inquiry Officer submitted earlier report, it did not disclose any business of money lending. But subsequently, he submitted a report pointing out that there was money lending business. He further submits that the registered sale deeds were executed and it was incumbent upon the Talathi to mutate the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue record as per Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (M.L.R.C.), 1966.
In support of his argument, he relies on the judgments passed by this Court in following matters :
. Karansing vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2016) 4 Bom. CR 674.
. Mandubai Vitthoba Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2016) 1 Bom. CR. (Cri.) 794 and points out that one isolated transaction can not be termed to be a transaction of money lending business.
Considering the issue involved in the Writ Petition, it is useful to refer the objects of the Act which are as follows :
OBJECTS
“An Act to regulate the transactions of money-lending in the State of Maharashtra.
WHEREAS the harassment at the hands of money-lenders had been increased in the State resulting into the frequent suicides by farmers;
AND WHEREAS the then existing enactment on moneylending was found to be inadequate to protect the farmersdebtors and to prevent them from the harassment by the money-lenders;
AND WHEREAS under the circumstances it became absolutely necessary for the Government to take appropriate and stringent social and legal measures to effectively prevent the harassment to the farmers-debtors at the hands of the money-lenders; it was expedient to make a new law having better provisions for the regulation and control of transactions of money-lending in the State of Maharashtra;”
I have gone through the order passed by District Deputy Registrar, Divisional Joint Registrar and the Registrar General of money-lenders. I have also perused the enquiry report submitted by Assistant Registrar. It is essential to refer to Sections 16 to 18 of the Act :
“16.Power of authorized officer to require production of records or documents:
For the purpose of verifying, whether the business of money-lending is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, Registrar General, Divisional Registrar, District Registrar and Assistant Registrar or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf may require any money-lender or any person in respect of whom the Registrar General, Divisional Registrar, District Registrar and Assistant Registrar or the officer authorized by him, has reason to believe that he is carrying on the business of money-lending in the State, to produce any record or documents in his possession which in his opinion is relevant for the purpose and thereupon such money-lender or person shall produce such record or documents. The Registrar General, Divisional Registrar, District Registrar and Assistant Registrar or officer so authorized may, after reasonable notice, at any reasonable time enter and search without warrant any premises where he believes such record or documents to be kept and inspect such record or documents and may ask any question necessary for interpreting or verifying such record.
17. Disposal of property pledged with money-lender carrying on business of money-lending without valid licence:
(1)If upon the inspection of record and documents made under Section 16 the inspecting officer is satisfied that the money-lender is in possession of property (1) If upon the inspection of record and documents made under section 16, pledge to him by a debtor as security for the loan advanced by money-lender in the course of his business of money-lending without a valid
(2)Upon the property being delivered to him, the inspecting officer, if he is Registrar (when he is also the inspecting officer) shall keep it in his custody for not the District Registrar, shall entrust it to the District Registrar and the District being disposed of as hereinafter provided.
(3)On delivery of the property under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the and identity thereof, return it debtor who has pledged it or, where the debtor is dead, to his known heirs.
(4)If the debtor or his known heirs cannot be traced, the District Registrar shall, within ninety days from the date of taking possession of the property, publish a notice in the prescribed manner inviting claims thereto. If, before the expiry of the said period, a claim is received, whether in answer to the notice or otherwise, he shall adjudicate upon and decide such claim. If the District Registrar is satisfied that any claim is valid, he shall deliver the possession of the property to the person claiming it on his giving a receipt therefor; and such delivery of the property to the person claiming it shall discharge the District Registrar of his liability in respect of such property against any other person. If the claim is refused, the property shall stand forfeited to the State Government.
(5)Whether the possession of the property pledged by a debtor cannot, for any reason (including identity thereof) be delivered to him, then the money-lender to whom it was pledged shall be required to pay to the debtor or if he is dead, to his known heir, the value of such property if such debtor or, as the case may be, the heir claims the property. If the moneylender fails to pay the value, it may be recoverable from him as an arrear of land revenue; and on recovery of the value, it shall be delivered to the debtor by whom such property was pledged or, as the case may be, to the heir.
(6)If there is any difference of opinion between the money-lender and the debtor or, as the case may be, his heir on the question of value of the property or its identity, the question shall be referred to the Divisional Registrar for decision and his decision on the question shall be final.
(7)The value of the property may be determined with the assistance of the services of an expert appointed by the State Government in that behalf. The expert may be paid such honoraria as the State Government or any officer not below the rank of Tahsildar appointed by it may, by an order in writing, from time to time, in relation to any area or areas, determined.
18. Return of immovable property acquired in course of money- lending:
If, on the basis of facts disclosed, during verification under section 16 or inspection under section 17, or by an application from a debtor or otherwise, the District Registrar has reason to believe that any immovable property, which has come in possession of the money-lender by way of sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise, within a period of fifteen years) from the date of verification or the inspection or the date of receipt of application from debtor, in the nature of the property offered by the debtor to the money-lender as a security for loan advanced by the money-lender in course of money-lending, the District Registrar may, himself or through an inquiry officer, to be appointed for the purpose, in the manner prescribed, hold further inquiry into the nature of the transaction.
(2)If upon holding the inquiry as per sub-section (1), the District Registrar is satisfied that the immovable property came in possession of the money-lender as a security for loan advanced by the money-lender during the course of money-lending, the District Registrar may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after recording the reasons, declare the instrument or conveyance as invalid and may order restoration of possession of the property to the debtor who has executed the instrument or conveyance as a security or to his heir or successor, as the case may be.
(3)Before passing an order or giving decision as per sub-section (2), the District Registrar shall give an opportunity to the person concerned to state his objections, if any, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice by him and may also give personal hearing, if he so desires.
(4)Any person aggrieved by the order or decision of the District Registrar under sub-section (2) may, within one month from the date of order or decision, appeal to the Divisional Registrar:
Provided that, the Divisional Registrar may admit the appeal after expiry of the period of one month, if the appellant satisfies him that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period.
(5)The order passed by the Divisional Registrar in appeal preferred under sub-section (4) shall be final.
(6)Subject to the appeal provided under sub-section (4), the order passed or decisions given by the District Registrar under sub-section (2), shall be sufficient conveyance and it shall be the duty of every officer entrusted with the work relating to maintenance of land records under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, or under any other law for the time being in force, to give effect to such order in his records.
The enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Registrar clearly denotes total 12 transactions made by the respondent No.1. He was also found in custody of 12 sale-deeds including the one executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 was really doing business of selling and buying agricultural land, there was no reason for him to retain those sale-deeds with him. It is pertinent to mention here that the sale deeds which were found in the custody of respondent No.1 were from the year 1999 to 2015 and none of those sale-deeds were reported to the revenue authorities for the purpose of mutation.
The District Deputy Registrar exercised powers conferred upon him by Section 16 to 18 of the Act thereby directing the respondent No.1 to return the property to the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. But, the Registrar General of money-lenders has reversed the order passed by District Deputy Registrar without recording any finding that how he reached to the conclusion of setting-aside the order passed by District Deputy Registrar.
Considering the documents available on record, particularly the inquiry report submitted by Assistant Registrar, I find that the petitioner has proved that the respondent No.1 was carrying on illegal money-lending business and the District Deputy Registrar has rightly passed the order of cancelling the sale-deeds and returning the land to the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Therefore, Respondent No.2/Registrar General of money-lenders has committed apparent error while setting-aside the order.
In view thereof, I find that the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/Registrar General of money-lenders is unjust and same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Hence, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
A) The Writ Petition is allowed.
B) The order dated 12.05.2023 passed by Respondent No.2 i.e the Registrar General of Money Lending, Additional Commissioner and Special Registrar, Co-operative Societies Maharashtra State, Pune in Revision Application No.04/2021 is quashed and set-aside.
C) Rule is made absolute in above terms.