Bombay High Court
Waman Ananda Asole And Another vs Divisional Joint Registrar ... on 19 April, 2018
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WP4839.17.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4839 OF 2017
PETITIONERS: 1. Waman Ananda Asole, aged about 47
years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Parmeshwar Dnyashewar Asole, Aged
about 33 years, occ: Agriculture,
Both R/o Badnapur, Tq. Mehkar, Dist.
Buldhana.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
Societies Amravati Tah. And Dist.
Amravati.
2. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Society, Buldhana,
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Mehkar, Dist.
Buldhana,
4. Santosh Fakira Bhalerao, Aged 48 years,
Occu: Agriculture,
5. Bhaurao Ramchandra Borkar, Aged 45
yrs., Occu: Agriculture,
6. MadhukaR Kisan Ghode, Aged 52 yrs.,
Occu: Agriculture,
7. Namdeo Kodu Borkar, Aged 58 yrs, Occ:
Agriculture,
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:21 :::
WP4839.17.odt 2/5
Nos. 4 to 7 R/o Badnapur, Tq. Mehkar,
Dist. Buldhana.
Dr. Renuka S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri D. T. Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: APRIL 19, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6-7- 2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Amravti on the application moved by the petitioners for mutating their names in the revenue records.
3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present litigation are that the respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed complaints before the District Deputy Registrar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short, the said Act) raising a grievance with regard to the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. It was their grievance that those sale ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:21 ::: WP4839.17.odt 3/5 deeds were executed as an outcome of money lending transactions. The said complaint was allowed by the District Deputy Registrar on 31-3-2017 and the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners came to be cancelled. On 12-4-2017, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar but prior thereto on 10-4-2017, the Sub Divisional Officer corrected the mutation entry as per order passed by the District Deputy Registrar. In the meanwhile the appellate authority on 22-5-2017 stayed the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar. On 30-6- 2017 the appeals filed by the petitioners were allowed and the proceedings were remanded to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh adjudication. In view of that order, the petitioners sought for correction of the mutation entries and by the impugned order, the respondent no.1 refused to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer to enter the names of the petitioners. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the order dated 31-3-2017 on the basis of which mutation entries were carried out on 10-4-2017 had been set aside, it was necessary for the authorities to have corrected the mutation entries so as to reflect adjudication dated 30-6-2017. The names of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 were mutated in terms of ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:21 ::: WP4839.17.odt 4/5 order dated 31-3-2017 which was no longer holding the field. It was thus submitted that by setting aside the impugned order appropriate directions deserve to be issued.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 7 supported the impugned orders. According to him, after the proceedings were remanded the matter was being heard afresh by the District Deputy Registrar and at this stage it was not necessary to interfere with the impugned order. Any adjudication by the District Deputy Registrar could thereafter be directed to be implemented by making necessary corrections. It was therefore submitted that there is no reason at this stage to invoke writ jurisdiction.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and relied upon the affidavit filed on record.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties it can be seen that the names of the respondent Nos.4 to 7 were mutated pursuant to the adjudication dated 31-3-2017. As of today that order dated 31-3-2017 does not hold the field and it is now superseded by the order dated 30-6-2017. In terms of provisions of Section 18(6) of the said Act, it is for the Sub-Divisional Officer to make necessary corrections in mutation entries so as to reflect the ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:21 ::: WP4839.17.odt 5/5 present state of affairs. It can be seen from the mutation entries that the position pursuant to order dated 31-3-2017 is reflected therein.
7. In the aforesaid facts the following order would subserve the interests of justice:
(1) The respondent No.3 shall make necessary entries in the mutation entries so as to record the effect of the order dated 30-6-2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. (2) The appeal pending before the District Deputy Registrar shall be decided expeditiously after which further action in accordance with law can be taken. Needless to state that none of the parties shall create third party rights in the suit property during pendency of the said proceedings.
(3) Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE /MULEY/ ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2018 01:26:21 :::