P. Janakirama Reddy vs The Special Officer Ponneri Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and The Sales Officer/Co-operative Sub-Registrar Ponneri Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

C.S. Karnan, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the

impugned order made in R.R.A. No. 137/2002-2003 E3, dated 17.06.2002, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and

consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner''s Tractor bearing registration No. TN20 Z6509. The short facts of the case are as

follows:-

The petitioner submits that he had availed a loan for the purpose of purchasing a Tractor from the first respondent Society, after executing

necessary agreement and including deposit of documents and title deeds relating to his immovable property situated in Valoor Village, Ponneri

Taluk, Tiruvallur District. Thereafter, the first respondent granted loan to him as per the agreement dated 01.08.1999, vide loan account No.

FM/232, for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

Further he submits that out of the total loan amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 11,500/- was retained by the first respondent Society as

deposit/marginal money. He has also paid a sum of Rs. 93,651/- to the credit of above loan account with the first respondent Society. Some of the

installments were unable to be paid by him due to poor agricultural activities in his village. Infact, the total amount of loan has to be paid to the first

respondent Society within a period of nine years.

The petitioner further submits that whilst to his shock and surprise, the second respondent, who is the recovery of the first respondent Society,

had issued an order u/s 8 of the Act 11 of 1964 r/w Section 22A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Land Development Act and issued an order in

R.R.A. No. 137/2002-2003 E3, dated 17.06.2002 and thereby seized the Tractor bearing registration No. TN20 Z6509, without following the

due process of law. As such, the impugned order of the second respondent is violative of the principle of natural justice.

The highly competent counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had deposited his immovable property title deeds with

the respondents and raised the loan for the purpose of purchasing a Tractor for agricultural purpose. After purchasing the Tractor, the petitioner is

unable to undertake cultivation in his land due to failure of monsoon rain and the lack of irrigation facilities. However, the petitioner had remitted a

sum of Rs. 40,000/- as interest and penal interest for the said penal loan amount.

The very competent counsel further submitted that after seizing the Tractor, he is unable to do his cultivation effectively, as such his financial

condition has worsened. The petitioner has also paid marginal amount of Rs. 93,651/- to the first respondent Society for purchasing the said

tractor. Under these circumstances, without giving any prior notice the second respondent seized the said tractor bearing registration No. TN20

Z6509. Hence, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice. The cultivation is not for his own purpose and producing food grains

not only for him and his family members but also for the general public. Therefore, the order of the second respondent for seizing the tractor is

tantamount to affecting the nation in general and preventing the petitioner from producing food grains by way of cultivation. Hence, the very

competent counsel prays the Court to release the tractor without condition.

The highly competent counsel for the first respondent has vehemently argued that after availing the loan for the purpose of purchasing the

Tractor, the petitioner had not remitted the monthly installment payment as on prefixed date. As such the petitioner had committed a wilful default.

The loan agreement made between the parties on 01.08.1999, as on date the petitioner neither paid the principal amount nor interest. The loan

amount will also carry a minimum rate of interest. The seizure order passed on 17.06.2002 i.e., around three years later, before that several oral

intimations given to the petitioner in defaulting the loan amount, even then the petitioner had not remitted the installment of the loan amount. This

Court had imposed a condition on the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for releasing the Tractor, this is the factual position of the case as

of now.

It should be understood that the agriculturist is a no mean achiever but the ''bread winner of the nation'', who not only feeds himself and the

country but also a contributor to the national economy. On the contrary a devious method has been hatched by the respondents to leave the

agriculturist to his own devise. Had he not pledged his valuable land documents in addition to part payment while transacting the loan agreement of

the tractor? Using the same ''yardstick'' of the respondents was the land documents surrendered when the tractor was impounded? Hence, it

clearly indicates a ''one sided treatment'' to a beleaguered agriculturist, who toils and sweats mainly for the benefit of others and it is for this simple

reason that it should uphold this unsung hero of our agricultural revolution.

On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order

of the second respondent, this Court is of the view that:

i. The petitioner had also contributed a sum of Rs. 93,651/- for purchasing the said tractor after executing loan agreement and after depositing the

title deeds of immovable properties, as such the seizure order is violative of the natural welfare since the tractor is being used for cultivating

purpose and for generating the production of food grains and not for his personal luxury.

ii. The order of the seizure is absolutely a preventive to cultivate and in this case the recovery of installments is not most important than cultivation,

therefore the writ is of a compelling force to be allowed.

This Court''s earlier order passed on 24.07.2002 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and if that order is already

executed then this Court''s order will not be operated upon. If not executed, the respondents shall release the Tractor bearing registration No.

TN20 Z6509 forthwith at his door steps unconditionally. The respondents are at liberty to recover the dues from the petitioner in an alternative

way by due process of law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above observation and the order made in R.R.A. No. 137/2002-

2003 E3, dated 17.06.2002, on the file of the second respondent, is quashed as it is unfit for operation, because it is against the tenets of national

welfare. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.