Rukum-Ud-Din vs Dharam Pal

J.V. Gupta, J. (Oral)

The judgmentdebtorpetitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the executing Court dated 4th November, 1980 whereby his objection to the execution of the decree were dismissed.

Dharampal, respondentdecreeholder, sought execution of his decree for the recovery of Rs. 6,000/ along with costs and in pursuance thereof got attachment and sale of the property belonging to the judgmentdebtor. The judgmentdebtorpetitioner filed objections on 11th August, 1977. One of the objections taken up by the judgmentdebtor was that he is a marginal/small farmer as defined in sections 2(h) and 2(j) of the Haryana Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1976, Haryana Act, No. 18 of 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and, therefore, entitled to the protection thereunder. According to the judgmentdebtor, he does not possess land exceeding one hectore and has thus got the protection under section 5 of the Act. The said objections were resisted by the decreeholder and it was denied that he did not possess the land exceeding one hectore. Rather it was stated that the land of the judgmentdebtor exceeds one hectore and his source of income besides agricultural land is that he deals in buying and selling cattle as well as sells milk of buffaloes.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(1) Whether judgmentdebtor has any protection under the Haryana Relief of Indebtedness Act 1976 ?

(2) Relief.

The executing Court after going through the evidence came to the conclusion that the judgmentdebtor was neither a marginal farmer nor a small farmer as claimed by him under the said Act. Feeling aggrieved against this, the judgmentdebtor has come up in revision in this Court.

"Marginal farmer" is defined in section 2(h) and "small farmer" is defined in section 2(j) which read as under :

"`Marginal farmer'' means a person who owns land not exceeding one hectore of unirrigated agriculture land and whose principal means of livelihood is income from such land or by manual labour on land not exceeding one hectore of unirrigated agricultural land or from production or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto or by practising craft by his now labour or by the labour of the members of his family in a rural area."

" `Small farmer'' means a person who owns land exceeding one hectore but not exceeding two hectores of unirrigated agriculture land and whose principal means of livelihood is income from such land or by manual labour on land exceeding one hectore but not exceeding two hectores of unirrigated agricultural land or from production or repair of traditional tools, implements and other articles or things used for agriculture or purposes ancillary thereto or by practising craft by his own labour or by the labour of members of his family in the rural area.

Explanation. For the purposes of clause (h) and (j) one hectore of perennially irrigated land shall be equated with two hectores of non perenntial irrigated land and three hectores of unirrigated land."

Section 5 thereof provides the discharge of debt, which is to the following effect :

"5. Discharge of Debt. Notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force or in any contract or other instrument having the force of law,

(a) Every debt, together with any interest payable thereon, owned on the commencement of this Act by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan, or a marinal farmer, whose annual household income does not exceed two thousand and four hundred rupees, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged;

(b) every debt owned to any person by an agricultural labourer, a rural artisan or a marginal farmer, whose annual household income exceeds two thousand and four hundred rupees and a small farmer shall be deemed to be wholly discharged if

(i) he, had in the discharge of his debt, paid a sum exceeding or equivalent to double the amount of the debt at any time before the commencement of this Act;

(ii) he, in the discharge of his debt, pays after the commencement of this Act, a sum which together with any sum already paid in the discharge of such debt, is equivalent to double the amount of the debt;

(c) every property pledged or mortgaged by a debtor whose debt is deemed to be discharged under clause (a) or clause (b) shall stand released in his four when such debt is deemed to be discharged and the creditor shall, if he is in possession thereof, return the same to the debtor forthwith;

(d) subject to the provisions of clauses (a) and (b), the liability of a debtor to repay the debt, together with any interest payable thereon, shall not exceed twenty per cent of the gross value of his annual household income multiplied by seven and such liability shall be spread for repayment over a period up to seven years to be reckoned from the date of order of adjudication. No recovery of amount in excess of the debt liability scaled down shall be made and the portion of the debt in excess thereof shall be extinguished."

According to the definition of the term "small farmer" a person should not own land exceeding two hectores of unirrigated agricultural land and secondly his principal means of livelihood in income from such land and if the conditions enumerated in section 5(b) (i) and (ii) of the Act are satisfied then the debt is deemed to have been discharged. As regards the marginal farmer his debt is discharged if his total income does not exceed Rs. 2400/. These ingredients are necessary in order to claim protection under the Act either as a "small farmer" or a "marginal farmer". In the present case, the judgmentdebtor has only proved that he does not own more than two hectores of unirrigated agricultural land. As regards the other ingredient, the executing Court after going through the evidence, has given a firm selling of cattle and that he also used to sell spare milk and thus his income from all sources is not less than Rs. 2,000/ to Rs. 2,500/ per annum. According to the executing Court, this statement is further corroborated by the decreeholder himself. Thus, the second ingredient that the income from such land is the principal means of livelihood of the petitioner or his income is less than Rs. 2,400/ per annum has not been proved. In these circumstances, the executing Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to claim the protection under the Act as he has failed to prove himself either as a "smaller farmer" or as a "marginal farmer" as contemplated therein.

The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that in any case he is entitled to the protection of clause (d) of section 5 of the Act. No such plea was taken before the executing Court either in the application or otherwise. Since it requires determination of certain facts, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take this point for the first time in this revision petition.

For the reasons recorded, this petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.