Back
1980 Supreme(AP) 29
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.KONDAIAH, P.A.CHOUDHARY
Sankara Laxmana Rao - Appellant
Versus
Dasam China Papaiah Raju - Respondent
Decided On : 02-12-80
The definition of "small farmer" in Section 3(t) of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 must be determined based on the individual debtor's holding of agricultural land, personal cultivation, and principal means of livelihood, and not on the basis of the holding of his family members. The exclusion of agricultural income from the annual household income for the purpose of determining whether a person is a small farmer applies only to Scheduled Tribes under Section 3(t)(ii) and not to non-Scheduled Tribes under Section 3(t)(i).
Headnote:
ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL INDEBTEDNESS (RELIEF) ACT, 1977 - SECTION 3(D), 3(J), 3(P), 3(T) - INTERPRETATION - SMALL FARMER - ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME - EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME - APPLICABILITY TO SCHEDULED TRIBES ONLY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLAUSE (I) AND CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 3(T).
Fact of the Case:
The defendant-debtor claimed protection under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, arguing that he was a small farmer and therefore the suit against him should be dismissed. The District Munsif Court found that the defendant held a small extent of land and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff-creditor filed a revision petition challenging the lower court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the definition of "small farmer" in Section 3(t) of the Act must be determined based on the individual debtor's holding of agricultural land, personal cultivation, and principal means of livelihood, and not on the basis of the holding of his family members. The court also held that the exclusion of agricultural income from the annual household income for the purpose of determining whether a person is a small farmer applies only to Scheduled Tribes under Section 3(t)(ii) and not to non-Scheduled Tribes under Section 3(t)(i).
Issues: 1. Whether the definition of "small farmer" in Section 3(t) of the Act should be determined based on the individual debtor's holding of agricultural land, personal cultivation, and principal means of livelihood, or on the basis of the holding of his family members? 2. Whether the exclusion of agricultural income from the annual household income for the purpose of determining whether a person is a small farmer applies to both Scheduled Tribes and non-Scheduled Tribes under Section 3(t).
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 3(t) of the Act by examining the language of the provision and the purpose of the Act. The court found that the definition of "small farmer" requires certain holding qualifications and occupational qualifications that can only be fulfilled by an individual and not by a family. The court also noted that the Act is intended to benefit individuals and not families. 2. The court interpreted Section 3(t) by examining the language of the provision and the structure of the Act. The court found that the limiting language in Section 3(t)(ii), which excludes persons whose annual household income exceeds a certain amount, applies only to Scheduled Tribes and not to non-Scheduled Tribes. The court reasoned that the Act makes a distinction between Scheduled Tribes and non-Scheduled Tribes and that the limiting language in Section 3(t)(ii) is intended to apply only to Scheduled Tribes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the defendant-debtor was not entitled to the protection of the Act because he did not meet the definition of "small farmer" under Section 3(t) and because the exclusion of agricultural income from the annual household income did not apply to him.
( 1 ) IN O. S. No. 167/1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court Pithapuram, the defendant-debtor filed I. A. No. 745/1977 claiming protection of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act No. 7 of 1977 ). The defendant claimed that the above suit instituted by the plaintiff-creditor against him for the recovery of a debt should be dismissed as having abated because he is a small farmer within the meaning of the aforesaid Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (Act No. 7 of 1977), hereinafter called as the Act. The District Munsif Court found that the defendant-debtor who is a non-trial holds a small extent of Ac. 0-37 cents of wet land and Ac. 0-973/8 cents of dry land. On that basis and without taking into account the fact that the debtors wife is possessed of Ac. 9-50 cents dry land, the lower Court held that the defendant-debtor is a small farmer within the meaning of the Act and accordingly dismissed the aforesaid O. S. No. 167/1975 as having abated.
( 2 ) AGAINST that order of the District Munsif Court, Pithapuram, the plaintiff-creditor filed the present C. R. P. No. 4848/1978 which has been referred by our learned brother Justice Ramachandra Rao to a Division Bench.
( 3 ) THERE are two arguments advanced by the petitioner. The 1st contention of the petitioner is that for purpose of determining the applicability of the beneficial provisions of the Act one should aggregate the properties of all those who are mentioned in Section 3 (1) as constituting a family because S. 3 (p) which defines a person takes in a family. In other words, the argument of the petitioner is that in Sec. 3 (t) where the words "small farmer" are found defined, the word family must be read in the place of person. So read the properties of all the members of the family defined in S. 3 (1) must be aggregated. The second contention of the petitioner of the petitioner is that the annual household income as defined in S. 3 (d) should be computed by aggregating annual income of all the family members without excluding the annual agricultural income so as to find out whether it exceeds Rs. 1,200. 00 in any one of the 2 years within 3 years immediately prior to the commencement of the Act. When the annual income so computed exceeds the figure of Rs. 1,200. 00 the benefit of the Act, according to the petitioner, should be denied to a debtor under the exclusionary words of S. 3 (t) (iii ).
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the petitioners contentions it is necessary to recall the fact that the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act (Act No. 7 of 1977) is enacted replacing the Andhra Pradesh Indebted-agriculturists, Landless Labourers and Artisans (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1976 for the purpose of providing relief from indebtedness to agricultural labourers, rural artisans and small farmers. Section 2 of the Act declares that the Act was enacted for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Art. 46 of the Constitution charges the State with duty to promote with special care the educational and economic interest of the weaker section of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. In this context we may also note the statement of objects and reasons given for enacting this law not in order to interpret the language used in the Statute but for the purposes of identifying the mischief which was intended to be remedied. The Objects and Reasons are as follows:-"the State Government have been viewing with great concern the exploitation of weaker sections of the community by unscrupulous money lenders and landlords. The existing laws on the subject of "debt relief" had to a certain extent saved from exploitation, such communities which are placed in economically disadvantageous position. As the feeling in the public was growing that t
