Civil Court alone competent to decide the issue.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- The petitioners herein have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent Dt. 8th Sept., 1981 following the second respondent's appeal and setting aside the onto of the Special Tahsildar, Debt Relief, Mettur Dt. 31st Oct., 1980 ho1ding trial the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980.

2. The petitioners herein have taken a mortgage loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the second respondent an 8th April, 1974 and the said mortgage debt was outstanding on the date of the commencement of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. Taking advantage of the provisions of the said Act, the petitioners filed an application under S.6 of the said Act before the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief) Mettur for a certificate of redemption alleging that their annual household income is less than Rs.4,800/- and that therefore they are entitled to the benefits of the Act. The said application was opposed by the second respondent on the ground that the petitioners' annual household income was more than Rs.4,800/-. The Special Tahsildar, by his Order Dt. 31st October, 1980 found that the annual household income of the petitioners does not exceed Rs.4,800/- and therefore they are entitled to a certificate of redemption. By the same order he also directed an unsecured debt of Rs.7,500/- due by the petitioners to the second respondent on a promissory note to stand discharged.

3. There was an appeal by the second respondent to the first respondent herein against the said Order of the Special Tahsildar. When the said appeal was pending, the definition of 'debtor' under S.3 (d) stood amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1981. By this amendment, a proviso has been introduced to S.3 (d) excluding certain persons from the definition of debtors. The provisos (i) to (iv) are not relevant in this case. The provisos (v), (vi) and (vii) are relevant for the purpose of the present discussion and those provisos are extracted below :

"(v) Whether individually or jointly owns in this State or elsewhere agricultural lands exceeding ten acres of unirrigated lands or five acres of irrigated lands (whether irrigated from a Government source or a private source):

Explanation: Where any person owns both irrigated and unirrigated lands, for the purpose of calculating under proviso (v), the extent of land owned by him, one acre of irrigated land shall be deemed to be equal to two acres of unirrigated land; or.

(vi) Whether individually or jointly owns in this State or elsewhere any other immovable property (other than agricultural lands), the market value of which exceeds twenty-five thousand rupees.

(vii) Whether individually or jointly owns in this State or elsewhere both agricultural lands and other immovable property, the market value of both such agricultural lands and other immovable property exceeds twentyfive thousand rupees.

Explanation: For the purpose of provisos (vi) and (vii), the market value of the immovable property of both the agricultural lands and other immovable property, as the case may be, shall be estimated to be the price, which in the opinion of the authority prescribed in this behalf, such immovable property or both the agricultural lands and other immovable property, as the case may be, would have fetched if sold in the open market on the 19th April, 1980".

4. At the stage of the appeal, the appellate authority, the first respondent, taking note of the fact that the petitioners own 4.02 acres of irrigated dry lands, held that as the petitioners are not small farmers, they are not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. Obviously the reasoning given by the first respondent that the petitioners who are not small farmers as they hold an extent of 4.02 acres of irrigated dry lands are not eligible for the relief under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 is untenable and unsupportable. If the petitioners are not small farmers, in respect of the debts they are not entitled to claim benef