Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Abdul Rasheed, Advocate for petitioner, Sri Vishnu Dev Shukla, Brief Holder for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5, Sri Sharad Tewari, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and Smt. Alka Saxena, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

2. This case is an illustration of high handedness of Government officials and financial institutions to ruin a poor farmer/ Agriculturist by snatching away whatever little he possesses for his sustenance. It demonstrates that once a poor fellow falls in the trap of borrowing a little money from a public sector financial institution, he gets trapped in the iron vice of wrongful demand, erroneous determination of outstanding dues, non acknowledgement of amount paid by him and ultimately goes to the extent of losing whatever little he possess in the name of property, whether moveable and immoveable through process of recovery by duress.

3. It is really unfortunate that in a country boasting of its main vocation as “agriculture”, and most of the people are engaged in farming, though constituting small or marginal farmers having small holdings, still after more than six decades, not only find it difficult to arrange their two square meals for family but in the fond hope of development founded on dreamy schemes launched by Government, they ultimately dash their entire hopes and expectations. Many a times property and life also.

4. I would like to first narrate factual matrix of this unfortunate case which has caused an extraordinary and grave injustice to poor petitioner, a small farmer, who fell in the trap of borrowing and consequential unmindful recovery in the hands of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 which shall demonstrate how the petitioner has been subjected to patent illegal and arbitrary proceedings.

5. The petitioner, Jai Singh, resident of Village Maroofpur, Post Mohammadpur, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki possessed certain land and for the purpose of cultivation thereof and others, decided to purchase a tractor. He looked towards Union Bank of India Branch at Barabanki for financial assistance and applied for advancement of loan of Rs. 2 lacs in the year 2000. The loan was sanctioned on 12.12.2000. It must have actually been paid later on. It appears that petitioner could not deposit regular installments and committed default. The Bank allegedly issued several notices, i.e., 8.11.2001, 25.1.2002, 19.4.2002, 18.6.2002, 19.9.2002, 20.12.2002 and 11.3.2003. It also appears that a recovery certificate itself was issued by Bank on 26.5.2003 for a sum of Rs. 270606/- plus interest w.e.f. 1.3.2003.

6. The aforesaid recovery certificate could not be executed and in the meantime the Bank also accepted certain payments from petitioner though not constituting regular installments.

7. The Government of India in the meantime came with a debt relief scheme, namely, “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008” (hereinafter referred to as the “Scheme, 2008”) whereunder the petitioner was found entitled for waiver of a sum of Rs. 221017/-. It is admitted that petitioner was entitled for the said benefit and consequently the aforesaid amount was reimbursed to Bank by Government of India and it was adjusted towards the outstanding dues against petitioner vide certificate of waiver dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It is admitted by Bank that after the said adjustment only a sum of Rs. 47059/- plus interest w.e.f. 1.4.2008 remained outstanding against petitioner. However, despite having issued certificate of waiver dated 18.9.2008, the Bank issued a recovery certificate for Rs. 211534/-. The exact date of aforesaid recovery certificate has not been stated by any of the parties but this is evident from record that the petitioner when represented that recovery proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for recovering a sum of Rs. 211534/- is illegal, as no such amount was due, the Bank issued a revised recovery certificate on 24.1.2009 mentioning the amount cla