Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE appellant is a subsequent purchaser from Devi Prakash son of Laxman Prasad. The case of Rama Krishna, the original owner, is that he had obtained loan from Laxman Prasad, admittedly a money-lender , by an oral mortgage of 12 acres and 20 gunthas of land. Laxman Prasad had delivered 4 acres and odd and got the sale deed executed for 8 acres 30 gunthas of the land in the name of his minor son Devi Prakash. Therefore, he comes within the provisions of M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Wargon Ke Krishi Bhumidharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchkron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam [for short, the Act]. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 27/08/1982 recorded a finding that:

"applicants witness No. 2 Ram Krishna Matharam and applicants witness No. 3 Kadulal have supported this statement. Along with this, non-applicant Eknath (one of the subsequent purchasers) has admitted that upon execution of the instrument of the transaction possession continued and remained with Ram Krishna. It is thus clear from the testimony of these witnesses that for several years after the transaction effected in 1964, Ram Krishna was in possession of the disputed land. It is noticeable that in Khasra 1969-70 also, his partial possession has been shown. Thus from these facts it appears prima facie that the transaction in question was a prohibited transaction of loan because, if it was a transaction of real sale, then Laxman Prasad and Devi Prakash must have taken the land in their possession soon after the execution of the instrument of transaction. "

( 3 ) THUS, it was declared that the initial sale dated 17/03/1964 and the subsequent sale deed executed by Devi Prakash in favour of the appellant and another sale deed in favour of Eknath on 23/05/1974 are void and directed the appellant and Eknath to deliver possession of the lands to Rama Krishna, On appeal it was confirmed. When the appellant and another challenged under Article 226 in Misc. Petition No. 1276/83 and another, the Division Bench of M. P. High Court by order dated 4/03/1991 upheld the orders of the Tribunals. Thus this appeal by special leave.

( 4 ) SHRI P. P. Rao, the learned Senior counsel has contended that the Act has no application for the reason that the land covered by 1964 sale deed relates to 12 acres 20 gunthas while the Act would become applicable when sale transactions are covered within a specified extent of land declared in the Act. We find no force in the contention.

( 5 ) SECTION 2 (c) of the Act states that:

(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. "

A reading thereof indicated that a holder of an agricultural land not exceeding 8 hectares of unirrigated land or 4 hectares of irrigated land within the State as a Bhoomiswami or occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in any one or all of the capacities together is a holder of agricultural land. It is seen that the Sub-Divisional Officer had recorded a finding that what remained in possession of Lakshman Prasad and his son Devi Prasad was 8 acres 20 gunthas and, therefore, it is within the specification of 4 hectares of irrigated land. The Act thereby clearly becomes applicable to the lands in this case.

( 6 ) IT is next contended that the Act applies only to sale transactions effected from the appointed date, namely, 1/01/1971 as specified in Section 2 (a ). Since the original transaction had taken place in 1964, the Act cannot be applied retrospectively. It is seen that the Sub-Divisional Officer recorded that though sales were effected only in 1974 but the document which purported to have been a sale deed of 1964