RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.

1. On 02/04/2019, after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Advocate for respondent No.5, I had passed the following order :-

"1. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner, the learned AGP on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent findings dated 26/12/2016 delivered by the District Registrar, Money Lending and dated 12/06/2017 delivered by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which is the Appellate Authority.

3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned orders. Contention is that he had purchased the land admeasuring 5 R from Gat No.513 at Village Dhekari by a registered sale deed dated 02/09/2005. The petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.5 while reducing the sale deed into writing on 02/09/2005. For one year, the petitioner was to use the land and respondent No.1 was to utilize an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which he would return within one year to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner further contends that after one year, as respondent no.5 did not return the money, he started pursuing respondent No.5 to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Since he did not return the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the petitioner preferred RCS No.31/2016 after eleven years.

5. Respondent No.5 moved the appropriate authority u/s 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending Act on 18/08/2016. By the impugned order dated 26/12/2016, the competent authority concluded that the said sale was a result of a money lending transaction and issued appropriate directions for transferring the land in the name of respondent No.5. The Appellate Authority concluded that the order of the competent authority was neither perverse nor erroneous and as such the said order was sustained.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Ramesh Dhulatrao Gawhale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 5 MhLJ 15 to contend that such transactions are purely sale transactions in relation to agricultural land and therefore they would not be covered by the Maharashtra Money Lenders Act.

7. I find from the judgment delivered in Ramesh (supra) that the facts of the said case have been recorded in paragraph No.2. The 8 respondents/agriculturists who alleged to have borrowed money from the petitioner Ramesh, deposed before the Assistant Registrar, competent authority under the Act that they have sold their field properties to the petitioner and have executed registered sale deeds. They contended that they are in possession of the land sold and the revenue records continue in their names. They claimed to have cleared entire loan amounts and yet the petitioner refused to re-convey the fields. The petitioner/Ramesh made a statement that as he resides away from the fields, he had given the fields on lease for cultivation to the original owners. There was no written lease agreement between the parties.

8. This Court relied upon several judicial pronouncements in Ramesh (supra) and concluded in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 as under :-

"13. Discussion above therefore leaves no doubt that legislature did not intend to cover transactions in which immovable property was sold as security under section 13-B of Act. In any case it is apparent that when interest in immovable property is transferred by mortgage or by assignment (Sale), such cases do not fall under it even if it be as security by debtor to moneylender. Legislature was alive to the legal meaning of phrase pledge and the same has been used deliberately in section 13-B. Read in contradistinction with section 18 and 28 this is more apparent. The word Pawn broker is not used in section 13-B deliberately because security accepted by moneylender maybe even of title deeds or bonds or other similar securities like cheques, shares etc. In a