Bombay High Court
Narayan Sitaram Landge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 January, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:2058
1 1-RA--258-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 258 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 14166 OF 2019
Narayan S/o Sitaram Landge,
Age : 65 years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Salegaon, Tq. Kaij,
Dist. Beed. : Applicant
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Registrar,
Money Lender Registrar and
Special Registrar Co-op. Society,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
2. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-op. Society, (Money Lander)
Latur Division, Latur.
3. The District Registrar
(Money Lander), District
Deputy Registrar, Co-op.
Society, Beed.
(Copy to be served on Govt.
Pleader High Court of Bombay
Bench at Aurangabad).
4. Limbaji S/o Vitthal Gayake,
Age: 65 years, Occu. : Jewelry Business,
R/o. Dharur, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed,
At Present : Asra Jewelars Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. : Respondents
Manoj 1 of 6
2 1-RA--258-2023.doc
------------
Mr. V. D. Hon Senior Adv. i/by Mr. R. P. Bhumkar for the Applicant.
Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar h/f Mr. A. A. Khande for the Respondent No.4
------------
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 11th JANUARY, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th JANUARY, 2024
P.C. :
1. This Review Application is filed seeking review of the
Judgment and Order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14166 of
2019 dated 11th September, 2023. This Court by way of the order
dismissed the Writ Petition.
2. Petition was filed by the original complainant under the
Bombay Money Lending (Regulation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") against Respondent No.4. The case of the Petitioner was that the
Respondent No.4 is doing money lending business. Towards security to
money lent to Petitioner two sale deeds were executed in favour of
Respondent No.4 in respect of land Survey No.286 ad-measuring 12 Acre
12 Gunthas and land Survey No.284 ad-measuring 2 Acre 28 Gunthas
bearing Sale Deed Nos.2665 of 1986 and 2675 of 1986. In 1995 Petitioner
had filed a complaint against Respondent No.4 had however no heed was
Manoj 2 of 6
3 1-RA--258-2023.doc
paid & therefore he again filed complaint before the authority under the
Act in 2011. Initially his complaint was allowed. The order in complaint
came to be set aside. The learned Registrar General ultimately allowed
revision filed by Respondent No.4. The Petitioner thus filed a petition in
this Court.
3. This Court decided the Petition on merits holding that the
Revisional Authority has not committed any legality in passing the order.
There is no perversity in the finding recorded by the Revisional Authorities
by observing that both the Sale Deeds were subject matter of civil
proceedings. In which there is clear finding recorded by the Civil Court
that the transactions are legal and valid.
4. In this Review Application it is sought to be contended that
observation of this Court that the Sale Deed was subjected to a civil
proceeding is correct only to the extent of land Survey No.284 to the
extent of 2 Acre 28 Gunthas. However, the land to the extent 12 Acres and
12 Gunthas was not a subject matter of the Suit i.e. RCS No.6 of 2011.
There is another Suit bearing Suit No.40 of 1991 that was filed by one
Baburao against the Respondent No.4 was decreed against the Respondent
No.4 by holding him to be a money lender.
5. The Respondent No.4 vehemently opposed the Review
Manoj 3 of 6
4 1-RA--258-2023.doc
Application. He submits that in Suit No.40 of 1991 the Court only recorded
submission of the Plaintiff that Respondent No.4 is the money lender.
There is no finding recorded neither any issue was framed in the said Suit
to that effect. He further submits that RCS No.6 of 2011 was filed by the
Petitioner himself against sons of Respondent No.4 as the Sale Deed was
registered in the name of sons of Respondent No.4. However, the said Suit
was dismissed and arising out of the said suit first appeal is now pending
in this Court. He thus submits that though this Court has not referred to
the RCS No.6 of 2011 specifically, however, the same is considered as the
Judgment and Order passed in RCS No.6 of 2011 was very much a part
record of the Petition. This Court has also considered the RCS No.40 of
1991. There is already a reference to both these Suits in the order passed
by the Revisional Authority. He invited attention to both the Sale Deeds
bearing No. 2665 of 1986 and 2675 of 1986.
6. In rejoinder the learned Senior Advocate submitted that there
were total 7 Sale Deeds which were considered by the Revisional
Authorities. However, learned Advocate for the Respondent specifically
points out that out of 7 Sale Deeds which are given in tabular form, only
two Sale Deeds are in favour of sons of present Respondent No.4. The Sale
Deed in respect of land Survey No.284 is in the name of son of Respondent
Manoj 4 of 6
5 1-RA--258-2023.doc
No.4. The Sale Deed in respect of land Survey No.286 is in the name of
another son who was minor at the time of Sale Deed. Therefore wife of
Respondent No.4 is shown as guardian of minor sons. The third Sale Deed
is executed by the person namely Baburao Ingale. Sale Deeds at serial No.
4, 5, 6 & 7 are shown only to attract the provisions of the Act. However,
those are not connected with the present Respondent No.4.
7. Considering all the submissions, this Court finds from the
record that the copies of the judgment in both the Suits i.e. 6 th November,
1991 and 14th November, 1991 were on record. In Suit No.6 of 2011 the
Sale Deed in question was Sale Deed for land Survey No.284 ad-measuring
12 Acre 12 Gunthas. So far as Suit No.40 of 1991 is concerned the other
Sale Deed from Survey No.286 ad-measuring 2 Acre 28 Gunthas was also
on record. Thus both the Sale Deeds have suffered a litigation and have
been held to be valid and legal. This Court finds that, there is no error
apparent on the face of record.
8. This Review Application thus deserves to be dismissed and the
same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Manoj 5 of 6
6 1-RA--258-2023.doc
NOTE:-
1. At this stage a request is made by the Learned Advocate for
the Applicant to continue the interim relief for a period of eight weeks
from today.
2. Learned Advocate for the Respondent vehemently opposes the
prayer stating that his clients are already in possession since long. When
the Petition was dismissed similar prayer for extension of interim relief was
made. However, the party did not approach the Hon'ble Apex Court but
filed only Review Application. However considering the fact that there was
interim relief for long period, the same is continued for four weeks from
today.
(KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Manoj 6 of 6
