( 1 ) THIS group of 3 petitions raises common questions of law and facts and can be conveniently dealt with together. The petitioners have, in all these 3 matters, challenged the orders of the Respondent Nos. 2 District registrars of Co-operative Societies and Appellate Authority whereby the orders issuing certificates under Sec. 8 (3) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Debt Settlement Officer, in favour of the first respondents were confirmed.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the various legal contentions in these matters, the facts of each of these petitions may be set out.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 788 of 1980, the respondent No. 1, who had made an application for obtaining relief under the said Act in respect of his debt of Rs. 3,000. 00, stated that he had mortgaged the land in favour of the petitioner and that since he was a marginal farmer his debt should be discharged. The Debt Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was a marginal farmer and that having regard to the nature of the transaction it was a mortgage by conditional sale. The respondent No. 1 was therefore entitled to obtain the certificate of discharge of debt. An appeal which was preferred against this order was dismissed by the District Registrar of Co-operative societies and the Appellant Authority, the respondent No. 2 herein and the certificate issued by the Debt Settlement Officer under Sec. 8 (3) of the said Act was confirmed. Admittedly, the registered document dated 9/05/1975, which was executed in this matter, contains a condition that the land in dispute was to be handed over on the Akhatrij of any of the years within 10 years from the date of deed on the refund of Rs. 2,700. 00 being the amount earlier described as consideration under the deed. It is recorded that, on the refund of the amount, the land is to be returned.

( 4 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 820 of 1980, on an application being made by respondent No. 1 for a certificate showing discharge of debt, the Debt settlement Officer, Naswadi, after examining the relevant material, came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was a marginal farmer and that the transaction in question was a mortgage by conditional sale and that therefore the respondent No. 1 was entitled to the certificate of discharge from the debt. The Appellate Authority, the respondent No. 2 herein by order dated 27-7-1979 confirmed the said certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 1.

( 5 ) THE document in question was executed in this case by the respondent no. 1 on 14/05/1970 and admittedly that document contain a stipulation that the possession of the land in question was to be handed over to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner 2 years after the execution of the said deed on any akhatrij when the same amount of Rs. 2,500. 00 is given by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. In the body of the said deed it has been mentioned that the possession of the land was given by way of conditional sale.

( 6 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 821 of 1980, the facts are almost identical with those of Special Civil Application No. 820 of 1980. Even in this matter, the Debt Settlement Officer and the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was a marginal farmer and that the transaction in question was of mortgage by conditional sale and that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to a certificate of discharge of debt under Sec. 8 (3) of the said act. The Deed was executed by the respondent No. 1 on 14/05/1970 which clearly records the stipulation that the possession of the land was to be handed over to respondent No. 1 by the petitioner, 2 years after the date of the deed on any Akhatrij on which the same amount of Rs. 2,500. 00 was given to the petitioner.

( 7 ) IN all these 3 matters, the respondents No. 1 admittedly are Adivasis. The lands are situate in Taluka Naswadi, Villa