( 1 ) THE petitioners who are residents of village Nana Anklewalia in Lakhtar taluka of Surendranagar district have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to challenge the appellate order passed under the provisions of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 by the appellate authority confirming the original order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer Surendranagar in favour of respondent No. 1. A few facts leading to this petition may be stated at this stage.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an application under sec. 6 (1) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Debt Settlement Officer Surendranagar on the basis that he is a marginal farmer within the meaning of the term given in the said Act. The said application was registered as case No. Adesh/lakhtar- 18. 93 and it was filed against petitioner No. 1 Mansangji Kalyansang and two others namely Pirbhai Tarabhai and Hiralal Maganlal. However by a compromise purshis Ex. 4 the said respondent withdraw his case against Pirbhai Tarabhai and Hiralal Maganlal and proceeded with the case only against petitioner No. 1.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the proceedings before the Debt Settlement Officer it was pointed out by petitioner No. 1 that the mortgage in question was executed by the respondent in favour of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 herein who were respectively his son and nephew. It appears that no notice were issued to these two petitioners by the Debt Settlement Officer during the course of the inquiry conducted by him. But petitioner No. 2 voluntarily appeared and gave his statement. The Debt Settlement Officer thereafter passed his order on 22-12-1978 and held the respondent to be the marginal farmer and it was further held that he was indebted to the tune of Rs. 10900. 00. He was absolved from the liability to pay the said debt.

( 4 ) THE petitioners being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of the Debt Settlement Officer preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal came to be dismissed and the appellate authority directed the petitioners to hand over possession of the land to the respondent. It is thereafter that the petitioners have preferred this petition.

( 5 ) INITIALLY notice pending was issued was issued by P. D. Desai j. On 8-9-1980 and ad interim relief as to possession was granted. Record and proceedings of the case were called for and thereafter on 23-9-1980 P. D. Desai J. admitted the petition to final hearing and granted interim relief against dispossession of the petitioners.

( 6 ) THE respondent has filed his affidavit-in-reply.

( 7 ) MR. D. D. Vyas learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted before me that the order of the Debt Settlement Officer suffers from two patent illegalities viz. even though the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were interested in the mortgage security they were not joined as parties before the trial authority nor were they given any opportunity to have their say. In any case so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned there was nothing on record to show that he was given an opportunity to have his say in the matter or to lead his evidence. Mr. Vyas further submitted that the second infirmity which stares in the face is that the debt settlement has mentioned in para 2 of his judgment that on 23-10-1978 statements were recorded of the creditor as well as debtor in the presence of each other. But the record does not show that on 23-10-1978 any statement of creditor Mansang vas so recorded. It therefore appears that inquiry conducted by the Debt Settlement Officer was not in accordance with law and was absolutely perfunctory in nature and has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice Mr. Vyas next submitted that no opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioners to cross-examine the respondent-debtor and hence also the proceedings before the Debt Settlement Officer were