Dhanraj S/O Chaganlal Dangra v. Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Amravati And Others

1 46wp7046.2025..doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 7046 OF 2025 (Dhanraj s/o Chaganlal Dangra Vs. Divsiionl Deputy Registrar, Cooprative Societies, Amravati and ors) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Rao, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6/State. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATED : 24-11-2025.

This matter was heard at length on the last occasion and repeatedly a query was put to learned AGP to point out whether there is any provision to seal any dwelling house property under the provisions of Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 or any Rules framed thereunder. This query was put to the learned AGP in view of the fact that respondent No. 5 sealed the property of the petitioner which is the cause for the petitioner to file this petition. 2.

Learned AGP could not point out such provision but he submitted that the power to take possession includes the power to seal property. He then asked for time to get instructions from respondent No. 5 Assistant Registrar of Money Landing and Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Darwha.

3.

Today, when the matter came up before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner makes a statement that house has been de-sealed by respondent No. 5 on his own. However, the question remains whether such power is there with respondent No. 5 to seal any property under the above referred Act or Rules. Today, there is no affidavit filed on record in this regard.

Belkhede, PS

2 46wp7046.2025..doc 4.

However, considering the fact that respondent No. 5 has desealed the property of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that purpose of filing of this petition is served and therefore, petition can be disposed of. However, to avoid repetation of such action, contrary to law, we are of the opinion that some protection needs to be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The Revision / Review Application No. 75/2025 is pending with respondent No. 6. The application for stay is also pending. Accordingly, we direct respondent No. 6 to decide such Revision/Review Application or decide the application for stay, within one week from the next fixed date.

The respondents are directed not to take possession of the property till the decision on Revision/Review Application or application for stay.

Respondent No.1 is directed to make an enquiry against respondent no. 5, who without there being any provision for sealing, in what circumstances and for what reason sealed the property in question. If the justification given by the respondent No. 5 is not found satisfactory, further action be initiated against respondent No. 5. Report of such inquiry and action taken shall be forwarded to this Court within next ten weeks.

Matter be placed after eleven weeks for above referred compliance to be made by respondent No.1 (RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S. KILOR, J) Belkhede, PS