IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR

Writ Petition No. 5088/ 2022

In the matter of allowing the revision application of respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 and
upholding sale deed executied by petitioner in favour of respondent no.4 as legitimate transaction

PETITIONER
Shivkali Dilip Yadav
Aged Major years
R/o Bypass Washim Road, Kamlanagar,
Tq. And Dist. Akola

/ VERSUS/
RESPONDENTS
1. Registrar General of Bombay
Money Lending And Special
Registrar, Pune

2. District Registrar (money

Lending) And District Deputy
Registrar,
Cooperative Society,Amravati

3. Assistant Registrar(Money
Lending) And Assistant Registrar
Cooperative Society, Tq. Achalpur

4. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate,

R/o Ghamodiya Plot,
Near Bus Stand, Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur And Dist. Amravati

5. Shantabai Ramkishor Jaiswal,

R/o Brahman Sabha Colony,
Paratwada Tq. Achalpur and District
Amravati

6. Rajendrakumar Fakirchand Agrawal,

R/ o Circuit House Road,
Paratwada, Tq. Achalpur And Dist.
Amravati

7. Akshada Rajendrakumar
Agrawal, R/o Circuit House Road,
Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur and Dist. Amravati

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

The petitioner above named most respectfully submits as under:

1. The Petitioner is a citizen of India and a permanent resident of the above- mentioned
address. The petitioner was the owner of land bearing Mauza- Sahapur, Wadgaon Tq. Achalpur
and Dist. Amravati Having Gat No .33, admeasuring 2 Hectare. That respondent no.1, 2 and 3
are the quasi judicial authorities who have passed the orders while respondent no.4 i.e.
Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate is a money Lender who has illegally executed sale deed in his favour
from petitioner dated 16.3.2019. Copy of the sale deed dated 16.3.2019 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure- I. Respondent No.5 is Subsequent purchaser while respondent no. 6
and 7 are in whose favour agreement to sale was executed by respondent no.4. It is
submitted that despite the petitioner clearly stating that the said transaction was money lending
transaction respondent no.1. Registrar General of Bombay Money Lending and Special Registrar,
Pune was pleased to allow the revision of respondent no.4 and held that the said transaction
was sale transaction and quashed orders passed by respondent no.2 and 3. Aggrieved by the
same petitioner has preferred present petition on following facts and grounds amongst others:

2. That petitioner was owner of land bearing Mauza- Sáhapur, Wadgaon Tq. Achalpur and
Dist. Amravati having Gat No .33, admeasuring 2 Hectare vide sale deed dated 28.2.2008
bearing Sale deed No. 641/2008 and is in possession of the same from the date of sale deed.

3. Petitioner submits that from respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate on February
2019 she had taken loan at 2 % interest and as security respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash
Bapuraoji kept her land. That Respondent No.4 illegally executed sham sale deed in his favour
from petitioner dated 16.3.2019 showing the sale consideration as Rs.28 lakh 15
thousand. Thereafter the petitioner repaid the loan Along with interest but respondent no.4 i.e.
Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate failed to return the land kept as security. It is further submitted
that petitioner objected to the mutation in name of respondent no.4 i.e. Subhash Bapuraoji
Rahate but he assured that the said land will be returned on repayment of loan amount. It is
submitted that respondent no.4 even resold the land to respondent no. 6 and 7 and valued the
said land at Rs.75 lakh vide agreement to sale dated 15.9.2020 Subsequently sale deed dated
23.10.2020 bearing No. 2874/2020 was entered between respondent no.4 and 5. Copy of the
sale deed dated 23.10.2020 bearing No. 2874/2020 between respondent no.4 and 5 and
agreement to sale dated 15.9.2020 between respondent no. 5 and 6 and 7 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure-II. The said agreement even has written that during the execution of
the sale deed consent of Shivkali Dilip Yadav either in form of affidavit or as witness.

Reply to para 3
The petitioner has stated numerous times in all places that the alleged loan was obtained
from the non-applicant Subhash Rahate in February 2019 at 2% interest, but nowhere is it
stated how much the principal amount was borrowed, for how long period the loan was
obtained, what timeframe was 2% interest applied to, or what the terms and conditions for
repayment of loan were. It was never brought up in any of the complaints that were
occasionally lodged everywhere, or in any affidavit, written declaration, or reply that was
ever brought before a court.

It was not specified when the loan was repaid, the total amount of Interest paid in addition
to the principal amount, whether the loan was paid off in one lump sum or through
predetermined scheduled periodic instalments, wheather the payment was made in cash, or
through a cheque, a bank transfer, an online transaction, etc.
 The receipts obtained from Subhash Rahate for the refunded amount of loan were
never produced, indicating that the loan was paid back in cash. Regarding whether the
repayment was made using banking transactions or another method, no documentation or
supporting evidence has been provided.

If the unexplained and undefined so-called loan amount from the respondent Subhash
Rahate was only obtained by the petitioner in February 2019, what was the amount of 28
lakh 15 thousand received by the petitioner once again through RTGS on March 15, 2019, and
for what purpose? The complainant is remarkably silent about this.

The petitioner has made blatantly lied statements and egregiously misleading assertions in
her complaint to the District Registrar and other authorities, that Subhash Rahate had
deposited the amount of Rs. 28 lakh 15 thousand into her bank account through RTGS on
March 15, 2019, and that the following day, Subhash Rahate himself fraudulently and
secretly withdrew the entire sum from her account without her knowledge.

The Idea that one individual might fraudulently remove lakhs of rupees from another
person’s bank account is therefore preposterous and incomprehensible. Even stranger
and more perplexing is the fact that the petitioner never reported Subhash Rahate to the
police for the crime he committed, despite the petitioner discovering such a serious fraud and
embezzlement of such a significant sum.

She omitted herself from making any grievances to her bank in this regard and she didn’t
even protest to her bank about the money that was disappeared or removed from her
account, nor did she seek any sort of resolution at any level or claimed for compansation for
the funds that were stolen from her account.

The petitioner has never objected in anyway to the mutation of the afore-mentioned land
in the name of respondent no. 4, Subhash Bapuraoji Rahate, and then respondent no. 5,
Shantabai Jaiswal, to any competent body.

4. Subsequently notice was sent by petitioner to respondent no.4 and So also respondent
no.4 replied to the said notice. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the petitioner wherein
she has stated that the said sale deed was executed in favour of respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash
Bapuraoji Rahate as security of money lending transaction and even after repayment of money
taken along with interest respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate failed to transfer
back the land in her favour. Copy of the complaint dated 24.8.2020 by petitioner is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-III.

5. Thereafter respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate filed his written statement
dated 27.10.2020 wherein he denied the allegations of the petitioner and stated that the
transaction was legitimate sale transaction. Copy of the written statement dated 27.10.2020 by
respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-IV. That respondent no.1 i.e. Assistant Registrar (Money Lending) u/ s 16 of
Maharashtra Money Lending Act in its report dated 12.11.2020 was pleased to hold that the
transaction between petitioner and respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate is not
money lending transaction but failed
 to consider the contentions of the petitioner. Copy of the report u/ s 16 of Maharashtra
Money Lending Act by respondent no.1 i.e. Assistant Registrar (Money Lending) is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-V.

Reply to para 5
Since the transaction was not a money lending one, it was impossible to have any
evidence about it. The petitioner did not produce, and in fact, she was never able to
produce, any
evidence or proof in support of her allegations that the said sale deed executed in favour of
respondent No. 4 (Subhash Bapuraoji Rahate) was as a safeguard of money
lending transaction.

It was a legal transaction of sale and purchase. The petitioner voluntarily, with freewill,
without any compulsion or deception, before the competent authority and in the presence
of two witnesses, signed and executed the registered sale document of her agricultural land
in exchange for fair, reasonable, and alluring payment received from the buyer.

Taking into account all the above mentioned points, the Assistant Registrar (Money
Lending), in accordance with Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act, correctly
holds in his report dated 12/11/2020, that the transaction between the petitioner and
Respondent No. 4, Subhash Bapuraoji Rahate, is not a money lending transaction.

6. Subsequently petitioner filed its objection to report dated 12.11.2020 by Assistant

Registrar (Money Lending) before respondent no.2 i.e District Registrar (money Lending) dated
3.12.2020, wherein she clearly stated that report is perverse and against the principles of law.
Copy of the objection dated 3.12.2020 by petitioner before respondent no.2 i.e District
Registrar (money Lending) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-VI.

7. Respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate even filed its written statement dated
4.1.2021 and opposed the application. Copy of the written statement dated 4.1.2021 is annexed
herewith and # Marked as Annexure-VII. Thereafter District Registrar (money Lending) was
pleased to refer the matter afresh to Assistant Registrar (Money Lending) for fresh
consideration u/ s 18 (1) of Maharashtra Money Lending Act. Copy of the order dated
8.12.2020 is annexed Herewith and marked as Annexure-VIII.

Reply to para 7
This is a feeble attempt to demonstrate that non-applicants were given the chance to state
their case. This is a false contention made before the Honourable High Court, claiming that
the District Registrar was happy to refer the matter for new consideration i.e., for re-
inquiry,
after the non-applicant Subhash Rahate submitted a written statement opposing the
petitioner’s request for are-inquiry of the matter. This is a blatant attempt to mislead
the court.

The complainant Shivkali Yadav submitted a written objection application to the District
Registrar, Amravati, on 03/12/2020 and demanded are-investigation of the said
matter.
 Pursuant thereto, the District Registrar, Amravati, vide his letter No. Juni-Am/Savkari
takrar/4634/2020 dt. As on 08/12/2020, made an order to the Assistant Registrar,
Achalpur, Mr. Ulhe, to accept the objections and oral arguments mentioned in the
application of the
complainant, and tore-investigate the matter and to apprise the applicant and to submit the
report of there-inquiry to his office.

The District Registrar (Money Lending) sent the aforementioned matter for re-inquiry by
means of an absolutist, arbitrary and illegal order; nevertheless, he made no attempt to
inform the non-applicants anyway in this regard. Basically, this order of re-investigation was
completely unlawful and beyond the rules. This order was not subject to any provision of
law or regulation.

By setting aside the original inquiry report, sent by the Assistant Registrar in accordance
with the fair findings of the inquiry, and referring the same matter to the same subordinate
officer for re-investigation, clearly indicates that the matter was again forcibly referred to for
re-
investigation only because that subordinate officer had not sent the previous inquiry report
as per the wishes of the District Registrar. And the purpose was to put pressure on him to
send
the desired and favourable report as per own wishes of District Registrar.

Also, before the said case was sent for re-investigation, the non-applicants were not informed
in anyway. No notice letter was given to them. Neither was any hearing conducted before
the order was passed, nor were the non-applicants given any opportunity to be heard. In this
way, the principle of natural justice has been violated.

The non-applicants/respondents only learned that the matter had been sent for are-
examination without giving them the chance to be heard when they received notices from
the Assistant Registrar, Achalpur, to appear on the date of there-investigation hearing.
Finally, on 4/1/21 (one month after the matter was sent for are-inquiry), Respondent No. 4
Subhash
Rahate submitted a written statement to the District Registrar objecting to the petitioner’s
request for are-inquiry in the matter. However, the District Registrar Amravati did not
take cognizance of or act upon such submission.

Despite waiting for several months, Subhash Rahate had not received even a single
response to his written statement ever.

When the source of so-called inquiry i.e. the order of the District Registrar itself was defective
and illegal, then that entire inquiry and its product i.e. inquiry report would also
be considered defective and illegal and liable to be quashed.

8. It is further submitted that even respondent no.5 i.e. Shantabai Ramkishor Jaiswal filed her
reply dated 16.3.2021 and opposed the application. Copy of the reply dated 16.3.2021 by
respondent no.4 i.e. Shantabai Ramkishor Jaiswal is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-
IX.
 Reply to para 8
Again this is a false and misleading contention made before the Honourable High Court,
that even respondent no. 5 i.e. Shantabai Ramkishor Jaiswal was also given an opportunity
to
present her side before re-enquiry was ordered and she also filed her reply dated
16.3.2021 and opposed the application.

The fact is that ShantabaiJaiswal was not a party in anyway to the case when the district
registrar sent the matter on 8/12/2020 for re-inquiry. She was made a party in matter by
sending a notice by the Assistant Registrar on the application of the plaintiff in the course
of re-inquiry.

Eventhough Shantabai had filed her reply opposing the petitioner’s application for re-
inquiry, but her reply was filed on the date 16.3.2021, three months after there-enquiry was
ordered by the district registrar and during the course of said re-inquiry or second inquiry.

But that too remained futile. Her objection to conduct such are-inquiry also yielded no
result and illegal re-enquiry continued.

Due to the fact that no respondents were heard, and the illegal re-inquiry was permitted
to continue, it had ended with the final report, prepared by the Assistant Registrar and
submitted to the District Registrar, under the heading of ‘Order u/s 18 (1) of the
Maharashtra Money Lending Act’.

When the source of so-called inquiry i.e. the order of the District Registrar itself was defective
and illegal, then that entire inquiry and its product i.e. inquiry report would also
be considered defective and illegal and liable to be quashed.

9. That vide order dated 20.10.2021 Assistant Registrar (Money Lending) was pleased to allow
the application of the petitioner holding therein that the respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash
Bapuraoji Rahate has not been able to explain the sudden rise of land from Rs. 28,15,000/-to
Rs.75,00,000/- which would show that transaction between petitioner and respondent no.4
i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate was under the garb of a money lending transaction and was
further pleased to cancel the sale deed between petitioner and respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash
Bapuraoji Rahate. Copy of order dated 20.10.2021 by Assistant Registrar (Money Lending) is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-X.

Reply to para 9
The petitioner had sold the respondent Subhash Rahate the aforementioned agricultural
land for the consideration of a total sumof Rs. 68 lakh 15 thousand. By the way of execution
of a registered sale deed, the purchase was made. However, the value of Rs. 28 lakh 15
thousand, or the government rate for that land, was mentioned in the sale deed as
consideration.
 Out of the actual consideration of Rs. 68 lakh 15 thousand, the petitioner received a cash
payment of Rs. 40 lakh that was hidden and not reported. Before the sale deed was signed,
that sum was paid to her in front of two witnesses, Suraj Prakash Yadav, and Gajendra
Rupkishor Yadav, Both R/o Paratwada, whose names are specified in sale deed and who
have given sworn declarations via affidavits. Those witnesses have stated unequivocally in
their
affidavits, that the plaintiff was given a cash advance of Rs 40 lakh, while the land deal
was being finalised.

The remaining amount of Rs 28 lakh 15 thousand of the purchase price, calculated at

the government rate, was deposited into the petitioner’s bank account using RTGS by
the
purchaser, at the time of sale deed was executed.

Subhash Rahate, the defendant, sold the aforementioned land to Shantabai Jaiswal, the
defendant, for a sumof Rs. 77 lakhs after an interval of one and a half years. Accordingly, it
is impossible to claim that the value of the aforementioned land has increased suddenly or
abnormally.

Such a claim is only based on conjecture, speculation and imagination. In actuality, it is

impossible to predict when, how much, or for what reason, the price of any particular piece
of property would rise. Therefore, it cannot be viewed in this manner.

These facts were explained by defendants time to time, in their written replies submitted to
the Assistant Registrar that out of the actual amount of consideration, an undisclosed
amount of Rs 40 lakh was paid in cash to the petitioner. This was paid to her as per the
precondition
imposed by her, for the said sale transaction of the suit property. That amount was paid to
protect her from paying the huge amount of income tax that would have been levied on her,
if the actual amount of the sale transaction had been disclosed and broughton record.

10. That thereafter respondent no.5 i.e. Shantabai Ramkishor Jaiswal and respondent no.4
i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate filed a revision application before respondent no.1 i.e.
Registrar General of Bombay Money Lending and Special Registrat, Pune vide Revision
Application No. 62/2021 and 64/2021 respectively. Copy of the Revision Application No.
62/2021 and 64/2021 are collectively. Petitioner and annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure-XI. Respondents filed their reply. Copy of the replies are collectively annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure-XII. Vide order dated 12.4.2022 respondent no.1 i.e.
Registrar General of Bombay Money Lending and Special Registrar, Pune was pleased to allow
the applications and was pleased to quash and set aside order dated 20.10.2021 passed by
Assistant Registrar (Money Lending) and was further pleased to quash and set aside
application dated 3.12.2020 passed by petitioner dated 3.12.2020 before respondent no.2 i.e.
District Registrar (money Lending) against enquiry report dated 12.11.2020. Copy of the
order dated 12.4.2022 respondent no.1 i.e. Registrar General of Bombay (Money Lending and
Special Registrar), Pune annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-XIII. Aggrieved by the
same the petitioner is compelled to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court
under Article 227 of the Constitution Of India on the following grounds:
 GROUNDS:-
I. It is submitted that the Learned authority failed to see that respondent no.4 i.e.
Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate had entered into an agreement of sale with Rajendra Fakirchand
Agrawal and Akshada Rajendra Agrawal dated 1.6.2020 for Rs.75,00,000/- and entered into
sale deed with Shanta Ramkishor Jaiswal vide agreement dated 1.9.2020 and sale deed
dated 23.10.2020 for Rs.77,00,000/-while the alleged sale transaction between petitioner
and respondent no.5 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate is dated 16.3.2019 for Rs. 28,15,000/.
The respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate failed to explain the sudden increase in
valuation of the land which would show that the transaction between petitioner and respondent
no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate is money lending transaction. Thus the sale deed is entitled
to be cancelled.

Rebuttal
The petitioner had sold the aforementioned agricultural land to the respondent
Subhash Rahate, for the consideration of a total sum of Rs. 68 lakh 15 thousand. However,
Instead of showing the actual purchase price of the land, valuation of ₹ 28 lakh 15 thousand,
which was the declared government price of this land, was mentioned in the sale deed as
consideration.

The reduced or lesser amount of consideration was specified in the sale deed and it
was executed with an undervalued price for the various reasons i.e. On the insistence of the
seller of the property in order to reduce the amount of income tax assessed on the significant
financial gains made by the seller through the sale of the property, as per in accordance
with the established pattern of real estate purchase and sale transactions, and lastly, in
order to avoid having to pay additional government stamp duty by the buyer.

While respondent Subhash Rahate purchased the disputed land from the petitioner for Rs
68 lakh 15 thousands, it is not unusual or surprising that he entered into a sale agreement
with respondent Rajendra Agrawal and Akshada Agrawal on 1.6.2020 for Rs. 75 lakhs and
with respondentShanta Ramkishor Jaiswal on 1.9.2020 for Rs.77 lakhs, respectively, after a
huge gap of one-and-a-half-year. Accordingly, it is impossible to claim that the
value of the aforementioned land has increased suddenly or abnormally.

Such a claim is only based on conjecture, speculation and imagination. In actuality, it

is impossible to predict when, how much, or for what reason, the price of any particular piece
of property would rise. Therefore, it cannot be viewed in this manner.

II. It is submitted that it ought to have been seen that respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash
Bapuraoji Rahate has stated that Rs. 40,00,000/ was given to petitioner in cash. It is
submitted that respondent no.4 i.e. Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate failed to state when and how
so much amount is given is cash. This shows that the defense raised by respondent no.4 i.e.
Shubhash Bapuraoji Rahate is false and frivolous and the authority failed to see this
important aspect. Thus order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Rebuttal
Out of the actual amount of remuneration, an undisclosed amount of Rs 40 lakh was paid
in cash to the petitioner. This was paid to her as per the precondition imposed by her, for
the said sale transaction of the suit property. That amount was paid to protect her from
paying
 the huge amount of income tax that would have been levied on her, if the actual amount
of the sale transaction had been disclosed and broughton record.

The petitioner received that hidden and not reported cash payment of Rs. 40 lakh, before
execution of the sale deed. That sum was paid to her in front of two witnesses, Suraj Prakash
Yadav, and Gajendra Rupkishor Yadav, Both R/o Paratwada, whose names are specified in
the sale deed and who have given sworn declarations via aaffidavits. Those witnesses have
stated unequivocally in their affidavits, that the plaintiff was given a cash advance of Rs 40
lakh,
while the land deal was being finalised.

III. The authority gave undue weightage to the report of the Assistant Registrar as the said
report was against the provisions of law. It ought to have been seen that complaint was filed u/
s 18 of the Maharashtra Money lending Act but report was given u/ s 16 of Maharashtra
Money lending Act and therefore no weightage could have been given to report and
therefore the order is ‘perverse and bad in law’ .

Rebuttal
Section 18 is primarily concerned with determining the nature of any kind of transfer of
immovable property by the debtor to the money lender and, the disposal of such
immovable property in the prescribed mmanner in accordance with the outcome thereof.
It Is therefore pertinent to mention that the Assistant Registrar did not send his said
report under Section 16, but he sent it in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 and
the
powers conferred on him under Section 18 (1). But due to some printing error or for the
reasons best known to him, he referred to the report as ‘report under section 16’ instead
of ‘report under section 18 (1).

Thus, in said report, assistant registrar has concluded that the complainant could not
produce any evidence regarding illegal money lending. The complainant has not proved that
the
transaction of purchase of agricultural land between Complainant and non-applicant no. 1
was a hollow purchase or an illegal money lending. Therefore, the case is being dismissed
and the complaint is being disposed of without any further action.

When the orders for conducting an inquiry under Section 18 (1) by the District Registrar
were clearly given to the Assistant Registrar and after conducting that inquiry following the
due
process and in a rule-friendly manner, he submitted his inquiry report in a proper norm, it
is not right to try to take advantage of the printing lapses that took place in said report, by
giving it undue importance and trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court.

IV. Learned Authority erred in finding it is necessary for proceedings under money lending act to
have
complaint of more than one person. Single complaint is sufficient to cancel the sale deed done
in pursuance to Money lending transaction. Therefore the order is perverse and against law.

V. Learned revisional authority failed to see that well reasoned findings having been given
by respondent no.3-. Assistant Registrar. Revisional authority has upset them without
supporting
them with substantial reason. Revisional authority ought to have see that the scope of revision
is limited and evidence cannot be re appreciated by revisional authority. Therefore the order
of revisional authority is bad of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Rebuttal
Because the District Registrar was a higher-ranking officer than the Assistant Registrar Ulhe,
he did not object to the illegal order of re-investigation or refuse tore-investigate the matter.
In this way, he has supported and aided the misdeeds of his superiors. It has violated the
basic
principles of the ethics of judicial proceedings as well as the eternal principle of natural
justice. Because such are-inquiry conducted by him is fundamentally invalid, the action
report based on that inquiry is also invalid.

The most arbitrary and unjust factor is that, in a case in which he had previously conducted
an inquiry and sent the final report in favour of the defendants, here-started an invalid re-
inquiry and sent afalse and contradictory second report in favour of the applicant, with a
similar set of facts and in the absence of any new evidence. The report was erroneous,
illegal, and in violation of legal principles.

During there-inquiry, Mr. Ulhe engaged in criminal conspiracy with the complainant and
committed serious irregularities in the investigation process. He, as a public servant,
harbours corrupt intentions. He abandoned judicial ethics and, without giving us the
opportunity to
present our case, submit more evidence, file supporting documents and relevant case laws,
record the evidence of our witnesses, and cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses,
he closed the case for decision on his own accord.

During the course of the investigation, we, the non-applicants, requested that the affidavits of
the two witnesses to the sale deed, dated 16/03/2019, executed between the
complainant Shivkali Yadav and the non-applicant Subhash Rahate, be filed in order to
record their
testimony and to produce other documents and relevant case laws. When we requested
permission to submit all of this evidence, citing the case as closed for adjudication,
Assistant Registrar Ulhe refused to accept our written request and did not even
acknowledge our
application.

In addition, in connivance with the complainant, Ulhe permitted the submission of

false affidavits of two fake witnesses who testified that the non-applicant Subhash
Rahate
admitted in front of them that the said agricultural land purchase transaction with the
complainant was a money lending transaction. We, the non-applicants, were not informed
of this and were not given the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses.

He falsely noted in the case hearings proceedings diary on September 20, 2021, that the non-
applicants in the case did not file any application regarding the recording of evidence, because
there is no evidence of the non-applicants. Furthermore, the non-applicants are not present
to cross-examine the applicant's witnesses. There is nothing else to file in this case therefore
the case is closed for decision.
 He has committed all these criminal acts with corrupt intent, with an evil mind, knowingly
and to cause great loss to our property and our lives. He thus have committed an offence
under
Sections 166, 167, and 219 of the Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, we, the non-applicants, being aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant
Registrar, Achalpur, have filed revision applications nos. 62/2022 and 64/2022 to
the
Registrar General of Money Lenders, Pune. Additionally, the impugned order-like report
dated 20/10/2021 has been set aside by the hon’ble Registrar General.

VI. Respondent no. 1 failed to see the contentions raised by the petitioner in it’s application
and written notes of argument. Therefore order is perverse and bad in law and deserves to be
quashed and set aside.

VII. Respondent no.1 ought to have seen that the respondent no.4 and 5 have raised false
and frivolous claims and therefore the order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. The Petitioner submits that respondent no. 4 has already transferred the suit property
in favour of respondent no.5 and the petitioners have apprehension that respondent no.5
may further transfer the property. Therefore stay to the order dated 12.4.2022 is necessary
and so also direction to not create third party interest Against respondent no.5 is necessary in
interest of justice. Balance of convenience lies in the favour of petitioner and serious
prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if stay to further proceedings is not granted And
direction to not create third party interest against respondent no.4. is not granted. The
Petitioner has therefore invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court praying for
appropriate ad-interim ex-parte order to this effect.

12. The petitioner has not approached earlier to this Hon’ble Court or any other Court of India
in respect of the instant subject matter, or no other petition or any other case is pending
relating to the present subject matter in any Court including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. Petitioner having no other alternate effacious remedy is constrained to approach this
Hon’ble Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.

13. The petitioner undertakes to file true translation of Marathi documents as and when
this Hon’ble Court may direct to do so.

PRAYER
It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court by an appropriate writ, order or direction
including a writ of certiorari, May kindly be pleased to:

i. Quash and set aside order dated 12.4.2022 (Annexure-XIII) passed by respondent no.1-
Registrar General of Bombay Money Lending and Special Registrar, Pune in
Revision Application No. 62/2021 and 64/2021

ii. During pendency of the present petition, grant stay to order dated 12.4.2022 passed by
respondent no.1 i.e. Registrar General of Bombay Money Lending and Special Registrar, Pune
 and further restrain respondent no.5 Shantabai Ramkishor Jaiswal; from creating third
party interest for land bearing Mauza- Sahapur, Wadgaon Tq. Achalpur and Dist. Amravati
having Gat No .33, admeasuring 2 Hectare

iii. Grant ad-interim ex-parte orders in terms of prayer clause (ii).

iv. Allow this petition and grand any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit in
the
interest of justice and equity.

Nagpur COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

Dt: 28/07/2022 (Dr. Mrs. Renuka Sirpurkar)
Advocate