LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. The point involved in this case relates to the interpretation of S.12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 . The section deals with the automatic satisfaction of the dues in respect of a usufructuary mortgage after expiry of a period of seven years from the date of execution of the mortgage bond.

2. Each of the respondents 3 and 4 executed a mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner on 29-5-1973 in respect of certain agricultural lands. The respondents filed separate applications before the respondent No. 2 (Collector within the Act) for evicting the petitioner from the lands. A single case registered as Redemption Suit No. 26 of 1982 was started on their basis. The petitioner objected, but the respondent No. 2 allowed the prayer of the respondents 3 and 4 by order in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner appealed before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, respondent No. 1, but without waiting for its disposal, filed this writ application on 14-7-1983. The case was admitted on 19-7-1983. Subsequently, the appeal before the respondent No. 1 was dismissed for default in absence of the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing the entire redemption proceeding.

3. In the original writ petition, several grounds were mentioned in paragraph 2 which are apparently not happily worded. The points urged at the time of hearing of the case, do not appear to have been taken therein. The petitioner later filed an application for amendment of the writ petition and prayed for the grounds mentioned herein to be allowed to be taken.

4. Mr. Shreenath Singh, appearing in support of the writ petition pressed the following points :-

(i) Sec.12 is ultra vires of Art.14 of the Constitution;

(ii) The section applied only in case of a usufructuary mortgage as defined by S.58(d) of the Transfer of Property Act and not to any other mortgage merely by reason of the mortgagee being in possession of the mortgaged land and since the mortgages in the present case are anomalous mortgages as defined in sec. 58(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, the section has no application; and

(iii) The application of the respondents should have been dismissed in view of the exemption granted under S.3 by the State Government under Notification No. S.O.207 dated 13-2-1981.

5. The Act was passed in 1975 with the object to consolidate and amend the law relating to regulation of money lending transactions and to grant relief to the debtors. The relevant portion of S.12 is in the following terms : -

"12. Usufructuary mortgages and their redemption- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or anything having the force of law or in any agreement, the principal amount and all dues in respect of a usufructuary mortgage in relation to any agricultural land, whether executed before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been fully satisfied and mortgage shall be deemed to have been wholly redeemed on expiry of a period of seven years from the date of the execution of the mortgage bond in respect of such land and the mortgagor shall be entitled to recover possession of the mortgaged land in the manner prescribed under the rules." (emphasis added)

The State Government has been empowered by S.3 to exempt any class of money lenders from the operation of the provisions of the Act. S.47 deals with the rule-making power of the State Government for carrying out the purposes of the Act.

6. On the question of vires of the section, Mr. Singh contended that the provisions suffers from discrimination in the reverse by ignoring the length of different periods, for which individual mortgagees have in the past remained in possession of the mortgaged lands and the varying quality of the lands and thus treating all usufructuary mortgages similarly in respect of the quantum of profits realised by the creditor. The validity of the section was examined by five Judges of the Full Bench of this Court in Madho Singh V/s.