Disposed¶25

Shobhana Rupanwar v. The State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Feb 2025WP/12854/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions disposed of without interference; Divisional Joint Registrar order dated 28-06-2024 upheld; remand to District Deputy Registrar, Pune Rural for fresh decision; hearing opportunity to subsequent purchasers; Section 18 Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act 2014 proceedings; objection based on pendency of civil suits left open; all points kept open.

What did the court decide?

Since an opportunity is being granted to the subsequent purchasers to put forth their case before the District Deputy Registrar, there is no valid reason for interfering in the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. ¶20

Shobhana Rupanwar vs The State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any warrant for interfering with the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar directing grant of opportunity of hearing to the subsequent purchasers before the District Deputy Registrar. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar results in a situation where the original vendor, the original purchasers and the subsequent purchasers would all get sufficient opportunity of putting forth their defences before the District Deputy Registrar; therefore there is no warrant for interference in the impugned orders dated 28 June 2024.

¶21

Key takeaways

The objection of the subsequent purchasers that pendency of their civil suits precludes prosecution of the Section 18 proceedings can be raised before the District Deputy Registrar; the court did not itself decide that question.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.) - Five writ petitions (Nos. 12852, 12853, 12854, 12747 and 12742 of 2024) challenged the order dated 28 June 2024 of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune, which partly allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 27 May 2024 of the District Deputy Registrar, Pune Rural, Pune, and remanded the proceedings to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh decision with an opportunity of hearing to the subsequent purchasers. Held: no warrant for interference, since the order secures sufficient opportunity to the original vendor, the original purchasers and the subsequent purchasers to put forth their defences before the District Deputy Registrar. The subsequent purchasers' contention that pendency of their civil suits seeking declaration over the same land bars prosecution of proceedings under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 was left to be raised before the District Deputy Registrar. All points raised in the Petitions were kept open and the Petitions were disposed of.

¶1

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.12852 OF 2024

¶4

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2025.03.06 15:39:20 +0530

¶5

Bhanudas Shelke ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12853 OF 2024 Pratibha Divekar ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12854 OF 2024 Shobhana Rupanwar ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12747 OF 2024 Balasaheb Uttamrao Shitole ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12742 OF 2024 Balasaheb Uttamrao Shitole ...Petitioner

¶6

Page No. 1 of 4 4 March 2025

¶7

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶8

V/s.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Ms. Namrata S. Bobade with Mr. Sagar Nagarkar for the Petitioner in WP/12852/2024, WP/12853/2024 and 12854/2024.

¶12

Mr. Jayendra D. Khairnar for the Petitioner in WP/12742/2024 and WP/12747/2024 and for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in WP/12852/2024, WP/12853/2024 and 12854/2024.

¶13

Mr. Bhalchandra Shinde for Respondent No.4 in all Petitions. Mrs. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶14

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 4 March 2025.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

These Petitions challenge order dated 28 June 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune, partly allowing the appeal and setting aside order dated 27 May 2024 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Pune Rural, Pune. Divisional Joint Registrar has remanded the proceedings before the District Deputy Registrar for being decided afresh.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.

¶18

Page No. 2 of 4 4 March 2025

¶19

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶20

So far as Writ Petition Nos.12852 of 2024, Writ Petition No.12853 of 2024 and 12854 of 2024 are concerned, same are filed by subsequent purchasers, who were apparently not made parties to the proceedings filed before the District Deputy Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar has accordingly directed grant of opportunity of hearing to them by the District Deputy Registrar. In my view, since an opportunity is being granted to the subsequent purchasers to put forth their case before the District Deputy Registrar, I do not see any valid reason for interfering in the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. It is also sought to be submitted by the subsequent purchasers that they have already instituted suits seeking declaration in respect of the very same land and that therefore in the light of pendency of the said suits, proceedings under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 cannot be prosecuted. In my view, this objection can also be raised before the District Deputy Registrar by the subsequent purchasers.

¶21

Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the view that order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar results in a situation where original vendor as well as original purchasers as well as subsequent purchasers would get sufficient opportunity of putting forth their defences before the District Deputy Registrar. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference in the impugned orders dated 28 June 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶22

Page No. 3 of 4

¶23

4 March 2025

¶24

Megha 21_wp_12852,12853,12854,12742 &12747_24_fc.docx

¶25