Smt. Dulari and Another vs Collector Raipur and Others

C.K. Prasad, J.

Rameshwar Prasad predecessor in interest of the Petitioners filed application on 31.3.1979 before the Sub-Divisional Officer u/s 5 of the M.P. Samaj Ke Kamor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the said Rameshwar Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner, he received a sum of Rs. 1500/- from Respondent No. 3 in the year 1970 and he executed Hundi on account thereof. According to the Petitioner, he further needed Rs. 3000/- as he suffered loss in the agricultural operation, and put his need before Respondent No. 3. Petitioner was given the loan amount and was asked to execute sale-deed for security of the loan. His case further is that he was assured that possession of the land will continue with him and accordingly a sale-deed for 3.95 acress of land showing consideration money of Rs. 8,000/-was executed. Further case of the Petitioner is that lateron, Respondent No. 3 forcibly harvested the crop and got his name mutated in the revenue records, in the aforesaid premise, Petitioner filed application for restoration of possession under the provision of the Act. Respondent No. 3 contested the claim of the Petitioner and his plea is that transaction in question is an o utright sale and the Petitioner does not come within the definition of holder of agricultural land so as to derive the benefit under the provisions of the Act.

Application filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer by its order dated 23.7.1981 holding that Petitioner does not come within the expression ''holder of agricultural land'' and as such, the transaction cannot be said to be prohibitted transaction within the meaning of the Act. While doing so, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that the Petitioner''s wife possesses 22.75 acres of land. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner preferred appeal and the Additional Collector, by order dated 23rd February, 1983, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the case for consideration in accordance with law; holding that petitoner possesses loss than 8 hectares of un-irrigated land and the land belonging to the other family members can not be taken into account.

After the remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 13.9.1998 allowed the application filed by the Petitioner and directed for restoration of land in his favor. He found that the transaction in question is a prohibitted transaction of loan as defined u/s 2(f) of the Act. Respondent No. 3 aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and by order dated 19.1.1989, the Appellate Court set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and held that the Petitioner does not come within the meaning of holder of agricultural land, as defined u/s 2(c) of the Act. It is this order of the Appellate Court dated 19.1.1989 which has been challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. A.K Pandey appears for the Petitioners. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Sri Ajay Mishra, whereas Mr. S.K. Chakravarty appears for Respondent No. 3. Mr. Pandey, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contends that once the Appellate Authority while setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer held that Petitioner is holder of agricultural land he, at a subsequent stage ought not to have held that the Petitioner does not come within the said expression, He further contends that Petitioner being the owner of less than 8 acres of un-irrigated land, this itself qualifies the petititoner to come within the definition of holder of agricultural land and hence the Appellate Court erred in law in holding that he is not so,

Mr. Chakravarty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3, however, submits that for coming within the definition of holder of agricultural land u/s 2(c) of the Act, the claimant is not only required to establish that he possesses less than 8 hectares of unirrigated land, but he is also required to prove that he belongs to the weaker section. Mr. Chakravarty in support of his submission has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dayaram v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1988 RN 405. Clauses (c) and (f) of Section 2 of the Act which are relevant for the purpose read as follows -

2(c) holder of agricultural land" in the weaker sections of the people means a holder of land used for purposes of agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land or four hectares of irrigated land within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in any one or all of the capacities together within the meaning of the Code.

2(f) prohibited transaction of land" means a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agriculutral land against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in any of the following modes, namely....

In my opinion, a plain reading of Section 2(c) of the Act clearly goes to show that to come within the definition of holder of agricultural land, one is not only required to possess less than 8 hectares of unirrigated land but he is also required to belong to weaker section. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Dayaram (supra) relied on by Shri Chakravarty. In the said case, it has been held as follows -

We do not think if we should deny to ourselves use of the established cannons of interpretation to read meaning fully the relevant provisions together the object of the enactment and ascertain in that context the class of person on whom the benefit contemplated is conferred by the said Adhiniyam. It appears very clear to us that the Adhiniyam is a legislative measure enacted to relieve "agricultural indebtedness" of such holders of agricultural lands who are in need of protection to ensure for their better economic conditions. Although the term "weaker section" used in Section 2(c) is not defined but one is not left in any doubt about its purport and ambit. It denotes agriculturists whose sole means of subsistence is a small plot of agricultural land, No other person is made beneficiary of the benevolent provision of the Adhiniyam because only such agriculturist who have small land-holding are to be protected against "Land grabbing designs" of the money-lender, defined in Section 2(d) of the Adhiniyam, so as to pre-empt total destitution of such person. The legislature has come forward to enact the measure to give effect to the Directive Principles envisaged under Article 38 of the Constitution to promote a social order in which social and economic justice can be secured to all calsses of citizens. Such persons who have other vocation or profession would have no occasion to incur "agricultural indebtedness", sought to be relieved by the Adhiniyam. Accordingly, in our view, any person claiming benefit of the Adhiniyam must establish positively and affirmatively that his sole means of subsistence was such agricultural holding as was contemplated u/s 2(c) and that he had no other profession or vocation before his claim could be entertained for relief prayed. This requirement flows from the object of the adhiniyam which aims at relieving "agricultural indebtedness" only and not any other kind of indebtedness arising from pursuing any vocation other than that of an agriculturist.

Having appreciated the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that impugned order does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Petitioner has not been able to establish that he belongs to weaker section. Infact, 22.75 acres of land stands in the name of the Petitioner''s wife. Affidavit of the Petitioner shows that he and his family members carries on agricultural operation in about 125 acres of land and the same was looked after by the Petitioner. This being the position, he does not come within the definition of holder of agricultural land u/s 2(c) of the Act, to make the transaction prohibited transaction u/s 2(f) of the Act, so as to attract the provision of the Act.

As regards the contention of the Petitioner that the Appellate Court had earlier held the Petitioner to be holder of agricultural land, which cannot be overturned at the later stage. I am of the opinion that after the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside, the matter was remanded back and while doing so, the question was neither finally decided nor question addressed with reference to the aforesaid legal position. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner having not established that he belongs to the weaker section is not entitled to dervie benefit from the provisions of the Act. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was rightly interfered by the Appellate Court and the same does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the Petitioners.