( 1 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Civil Court can direct delivery of possession of the mortgaged land to the debtor in execution proceedings taken out in virtue of section 9 (2) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 (hereinafter called the Act ). A few relevant facts leading to this petition may be set out at this stage.

( 2 ) THE first respondent mortgaged his land bearing Survey No. 187 of village Gametha for Rs. 4000. 00 sometime in the year 1972 to Jinabhai Jasabhai Parmar since deceased. The three petitioners are the sons of the said mortgagee. On the coming into force of the Act the first respondent filed an application before the debt settlement officer Padra under section 8 of the Act. The debt settlement officer passed an order discharging the debt whereupon an Appeal No. 170 of 1980 was carried to the appellate officer appointed by the State Government for that purpose who modified the order passed by the debt settlement officer and reduced the debt to Rs. 1400. 00. The appellate officer directed that on payment of the amount of Rs. 1400. 00 the mortgaged land should be restored to the debtor. The debtor sent the amount of Rs. 1400 to the mortgagee by money order but the same was not accepted whereupon he filed an execution application No. 266 of 1982 for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property by depositing the said amount of Rs. 1400 in the Civil Court. The creditor filed a written statement Exhibit 12 raising the contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an execution application for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property and the remedy available to the debtor was to approach the debt settlement officer under section 1d of the Act.

( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Padra raised issues at Exhibit 14 as under : (1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this execution petition? (2) What order? the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that in view of section 9 of the Act the civil court had jurisdiction to execute the order of the appellate officer because it was in the eye of law a decree of a civil court. He came to the conclusion that if it was held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession in execution proceedings arising under the Act an anomalous position would arise in that one part of the decree relating to payment of amount would be excutable in the civil court while the other part relating to delivery of possession would be excutable before the debt settlement officer He held that such a situation could not have been envisaged by the legislature while enacting this welfare legislation. He therefore carne to the conclusion that the civil court had jurisdiction to execute that part of the order by which the creditor was directed to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the debtor under section 9 (2) of the Act and accordingly passed the impugned order for delivery of possession on 5/09/1982. THe creditor feeling aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition under article 227 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THE Act was enacted to provide for relief from indebtedness to certain farmers rural artisans and rural labourers in the State of Gujarat. Section 3 (1) lays down that on and from the appointed day. . . " (A) every debt outstanding against a debtor who is a marginal farmer or rural labourer or who is a rural artisan whose income does not exceed rupees 2400 per year shall be deemed to be wholly discharged;" (B) every debt outstanding against a debtor who is a small farmer or who is a rural artisan whose income exceeds rupees 2 400 per year but does dot exceed rupees 4 800 per year shall (I) in a case where any amount equal to or exceeding twice the amount of the principal has already been paid by or recovered from such debtor before the appointed day be deemed to be wholly discharged; and (ii) in any other ca