Bombay High Court
Vishweswar Bhagwat Papinwar And ... vs Maroti Kondiba Mane And Others on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31942
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12151 OF 2025
VISHWESWAR S/O BHAGWAT PAPINWAR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
MAROTI KONDIBA MANE AND OTHERS
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. G. R. Ingole h/f Mr. C. V. Bodkhe, Advocate for Respondent
No.1
Mr. S. K. Shrise, AGP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 20.11.2025
ORDER:
-
1. Heard. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken
up for final hearing.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge
the order dated 18/07/2025 passed under Section 9 of the
Maharashtra Money Lenders (Regulation) Act, 2014 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act' for short) by respondent No.4 (Registrar
General of Money Lenders and Special Registrar Co-op Societies,
Maharashtra State Pune), whereby the Registrar was pleased to
allow the Revision petition filed by respondent No.1 and remit the
matter back to respondent No.2 for fresh enquiry.
wp12151.25.odt 1 of 9
Facts giving rise to the writ petition are noted below:-
3. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 18 of
the Money Lending Act before respondent No.2 complaining that
the petitioners are involved in unauthorized money lending
business and the petitioners have purchased 2 H. land from Survey
No. 48/5 from the respondent by a registered sale deed dated
17.07.1981.
It is contended in the application that the sale deed was
in fact a security to an illegal money lending transaction and, thus,
the sale be declared null and void. The sale is an illegal money
lending transaction and, thus, the sale be set-aside and the land be
reverted back to the complainant. The petitioners responded to the
complainant contending that the sale transaction in question was
an out an out sale transaction and application for setting aside sale
under Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation. The learned
District Deputy Registrar Co-op. Societies, Nanded by order dated
16/06/2019 rejected the application filed by respondent No.1.
4. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the order of the
District Deputy Registrar (Respondent No.2) preferred Appeal
wp12151.25.odt 2 of 9
before respondent No.3, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op.
Societies, Latur and the same was also rejected by order dated
29/08/2024. Thereafter, respondent no.1 preferred a Revision
Petition challenging the order of respondent no.3 before the
Registrar General (Respondent No.4). By the impugned order the
Registrar General quashed and set aside the orders barred by both
the Authorities i.e. respondents no.2 and 3 and remitted the matter
back for fresh consideration to the District Deputy Registrar Co-op.
Societies (Respondent No.2). The order passed by the Registrar
General is impugned in the writ petition by the petitioners. It is the
contention of the petitioners that in exercise of power under
Section 18 of the Act the transaction of sale cannot be set aside by
invoking the provisions of the Act after period of lapse of 15 years
from the date of sale transaction. The proceeding initiated under
Section 18 of the Act is barred by limitation. It is also contended
that Registrar General relied upon the order passed by the
Tahasildar dated 19/07/2014, which was already set aside by the
Sub Division Officer and confirmed by the Additional Collector and,
thereafter, by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The 7/12
extract stands in the name of the present petitioners indicating the
wp12151.25.odt 3 of 9
possession of the petitioners over the land sold by the sale deed. In
any event he submits that the proceedings under the Money
Lending Act cannot be initiated after the period of 15 years from
the date of sale transaction and that respondent no.1 may invoke
any other remedy as may be available.
5. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.1 submits that the petitioners' family has been involved in the
money lending transaction and that criminal proceedings are
initiated against the petitioners. The quashing proceedings filed by
the petitioners is also rejected by this Court and, thus, prima facie
the petitioners are involved in illegal money lending transaction. He
submits that the Registrar General has remitted the matter back to
respondent no.2 as he had failed to consider the provisions of
inquiry as contemplated under the Money Lending Act and, has,
thus, rightly remitted the matter for fresh consideration. He
submits that the proceedings under Money Lending Act are initiated
by an application dated 19/12/2013 before the Collector. He
submits that the family of the petitioners have been charging huge
interest @ 3% and 5% per month and the the respondent executed
wp12151.25.odt 4 of 9
the document of sale to secure the money lended. The 7/12 extract
and holding of land, village extract 8-A dated 25/01/2014 shows
that the petitioners are having more than 150 acres of land
approximately and 99 plots and 4 bungalows earned through
money lending business. It is submitted that there is no limitation
prescribed under the Act and there is no limitation provided to file
Appeal, Revision or any legal proceeding. Section 18(1) of the Act
provides limitation of (15 years), whereas no limitation is provided
under the Act to register an offence. He submitted that the
authorities below i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 have erroneously
dismissed the proceeding as not within limitation and matter is
rightly remitted back by the Registrar General for inquiry by
following the procedure under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Act.
It is further submitted that the limitation is not pure
question of law, it is always mixed question of law and facts in view
of the Judgment in Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and
otehrs in SLP (C) No.2856 of 2015 in Civil Appeal No.3396 of 2015,
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 04/10/2019.
6. Having considered the rival submissions it is to be
wp12151.25.odt 5 of 9
noticed that undisputedly the sale deed dated 17/07/1981 is
sought to be cancelled and the lands are prayed to be reverted
back and the application under Section 18 of the Money Lending
Act is filed on 19/12/2013 before the District Deputy Registrar
(Respondent No.2), Nanded. Section 18 of the Money Lending Act
provides for limitation of invocation of powers for cancellation of
sale deed and reversion of the land. For ready reference Section 18
of the Act reads thus:
"18. Return of immovable property acquired in course of
money lending.-- (1) 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 1[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
wp12151.25.odt 6 of 9
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 (Mah. XLI of 1966),
or under any other law for the time being in force, to give
effect to such order in his records."
7. In the instant case, the sale deed, which is sought to be
revoked is dated 17/07/1981 and the application under Section 18
of the Money Lending Act is filed by the debtor in the year 2013 i.e.
is nearly about 30 years after the date of sale deed. Thus, the
application cannot be entertained under Section 18 of the Act as
wp12151.25.odt 7 of 9
the same is beyond 15 years of the date of transaction. On the
admitted facts as noted in the application under Section 18 of the
Act, the same is barred by limitation. The authorities below i.e
respondent Nos.2 and 3 have rightly concluded that the application
is barred by limitation, as such, it was not available for Registrar
General to remit the matter back for fresh consideration. If
respondent No.1 is in possession of the properties as claimed, he
may take recourse to any other legal proceedings to protect his
possession. However, the proceedings under the Money Lending Act
under Section 18 are not available as the same is barred by
limitation. The factum of possession is also seriously disputed by
the petitioners.
8. In the case of Sojarbai w/o Chandrakant Kakde Versus
The Registrar, Money Lending Additional Commissioner and Others
in Writ Petition No. 7736/2024, dated 25/07/2024 (Coram : S. G.
Chapalgaonkar, J.) this court has taken similar view and at
paragraph 6 has held as under:
"6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show
that the authorities are given leverage to entertain the
applications and return the immovable property acquired
wp12151.25.odt 8 of 9
in course of money lending transactions entered within a
period of 15 years from the date of the verification or
inspection or the date of receipt of the application from
the debtor and declare the nature of transaction. It is
not in dispute that in the present case, the grievance is
raised in respect of transaction of 1995 in the year
2014. All the authorities have rightly observed that
transaction took place beyond 15 years and as such
beyond time line prescribed under Section 18."
9. Law as discussed in the above Judgment of this court
squarely applies to the present case.
10. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
18/07/2025 is quashed and set aside.
(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
ssp
wp12151.25.odt 9 of 9
