Leave granted.
The appellants filed petitions under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh
Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke
Bhumi Hadapane Sambhandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam,
1976, (for short ‘the Adhiniyam’) and claimed relief under Section 7 of the
Adhiniyam by asserting that they belong to the category of weaker section of the
backward caste; that they borrowed amount from Jai Kumar Jain (husband of
respondent No.4 herein) and executed sale deed of land measuring 1.32 and 2.57
hectares respectively as security for return of the borrowed money; that they have
repaid the loan within one year but instead of canceling the sale deeds, Jai Kumar
Jain, in connivance with the revenue authorities, got the name of his wife, Smt.
Sampat Bai, mutated in the revenue records.
– 2 -
The Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom petitions were filed issued notice
to respondent No.4, heard the parties and passed order dated 22.6.1999 whereby he
declared the sale transactions as null and void under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam and
directed the concerned Patwari to delete the land which was subject matter of sale
deeds from the land record of respondent No.4 and include the same in the land
record of the petitioners (appellants herein). Respondent No.4 challenged the order
of the Sub Divisional Officer by filing appeals under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam,
which were allowed by the Collector on the premise that the appellants do not belong
to weaker section. The Collector observed that the Sub Divisional Officer did not
conduct enquiry in accordance with Section 6 of the Adhiniyam and held that he
could not have nullified the sale deeds on the basis of preliminary enquiry. The writ
petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the Collector were dismissed by
the learned Single Judge who confirmed the finding of the Collector that the
provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable to the cases of the appellants herein.
Writ appeals preferred by the appellants were dismissed by the Division Bench.
Hence, these appeals by special leave.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The
only question which requires consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants
fall within the ambit of the expression ‘holder of agricultural land’ as defined in
Section 2(c) of the Adhiniyam, which reads as under:
“’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 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.
Explanation.- One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two
hectares of unirrigated land and vice-versa.”
From a bare perusal of the above reproduced definition, it becomes clear
that a person holding land not exceeding eight hectares (unirrigated) or four hectares
(irrigated) which is used for agricultural purposes, whether as a Bhumiswami or as a
occupancy tenant or a Government lessee, is covered by the definition of the ‘holder
of agricultural land’ in the weaker sections of the people. In terms of Section 5, such
person is entitled to protection and relief under the Adhiniyam, which has been
enacted for protecting weaker sections of the people who are often compelled to seek
loan from private money lending agency to meet their obligations and are coerced to
transfer their agricultural holdings for securing repayment of loan. The revenue
records produced before the Court shows that the appellants in civil appeals arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No.3193 of 2004 and S.L.P.(C) No.12082 of 2004 were holding 1.32
and 2.57 hectares of land respectively. The Sub Divisional Officer examined the
records and concluded that they are entitled to protection under Section 5 of the
Adhiniyam because the sale deeds executed by them in favour of Jai Kumar Jain fall
in the category of prohibited transactions within the meaning of Section 4 of the
Adhiniyam. While allowing the appeals filed by respondent No.4, the Collector held
that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable to the appellants herein but
he did not assign any reason for recording that finding. The Collector also observed
that the sale deeds are not vitiated by fraud but while doing so he
completely ignored Sections 3 and 4 of the Adhiniyam which give overriding effect to
the provisions of the Adhiniyam and declare that all prohibited transactions of loan
as defined in Section 2(f) are subject to the protection and relief under the
Adhiniyam. The learned Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the order of the
Collector by relying upon the statement made by the appellants herein in which they
are said to have admitted that apart from doing agricultural operations, they were
having a shop, floor mill, a motorcycle, buffalos and other animals. In the opinion of
the learned Single Judge, the appellants do not belong to the weaker section because
they were not wholly dependent on agriculture. The Division Bench simply reiterated
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the letters patent appeals.
In our view, the order of the Collector is vitiated by error of law apparent
on the face of the record because while allowing the appeals of respondent No.4, he
did not consider the relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam and did not assign any
reason why provisions thereof are not applicable to the appellants. The observations
of the Collector that the appellants herein were holding more land is ex facie contrary
to the revenue records. The learned Single Judge repeated the error committed by the
Collector and went a step further by observing that the appellants cannot be said to
belong to weaker section because they were having a shop, floor mill, motorcycle,
buffalos and other animals. Since, the definition of ‘holder of agricultural land’
contained in Section 2(c) does not exclude a person having a floor mill or a shop,
dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge and letters patent appeals
by the Division Bench only on the ground that the appellants possessed shop, floor
mill, etc. cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders passed by the
Collector and confirmed by the High Court in writ petitions as well as in letters
patent appeals are set aside and the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer are
restored.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, January 09, 2009.