1984 Supreme(MP) 791

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. D. MULYE, V. D. GYANI
NARMADA SHANKAR - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, DIST.DHAR - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 512 Of 1983
Decided On : 11/29/1984

Headnote:(1) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ko Udhar Denewalon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- Preamble, Ss. 2 (c) 2 (d) and 2 (f) -- scope of the Act -- who is a person belonging to weaker section of the people -- matters included within the Act -- who can get benefit under this Adhiniyam.

       The Act or the Rules made there under nowhere define the person who come under the category of 'weaker section of the people'.

       A person who wants to take benefit of the provisions of this Act has, first, to prove that he belongs to the category of 'Samaj Ke Kamjor Varg' and he has further got to prove that the transaction relating to the agricultural land, which was entered into, was with a view to exploit the applicant economically. Therefore, it is the economic condition of the applicant which is the main and relevant factor to be considered as to whether that person belongs to the category of 'Samaj Ke Kamjor Varg' because the Preamble of the Act clearly stipulates to better economic condition of holders of agricultural lands in the weaker sections of the people.

       This Act does not apply to every holder of agricultural land even though the person may not possess agricultural land not exceeding 8 hectares of un-irrigated land or 4 hectares of irrigated land. Besides, such transaction must also be done with a person who is a lender of money as defined under section 2 (d) of the said Act. Therefore, a stray transaction would not come under the provisions of the Act unless and until it is proved that the person who has lent money is a lender of money and even section 2 (f) which defines 'prohibited transaction of loan' also applies to such transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land. [Para 12

       A person who from the evidence and material on record is found to be economically sound cannot get benefit under the provisions of the Act; otherwise every person who holds land less than 8 hectares of un-irrigated or 4 hectares of irrigated land would rush to the Court to set aside that transaction. There may be cases where persons are economically well off but may not have even a single piece of agricultural land, or there might also be cases where people are otherwise affluent, but have agricultural land which is less than 8 hectares of un-irrigated land or 4 hectares of irrigated land. But, such persons will not come under the definition of section 2 (c) of the Act because they do not belong to the weaker sections of the people in the economic sense of the term. Otherwise, the provisions of this Act could be misused by anyone who even does not belong to this category. [Para 17

       (2) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharkon Ko Udhar Denewalon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambhandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- S. 6 -- Rules thereunder -- R. 4 -- Dufy of -- the Sub-Divisional Officer - enquiry -- extent and necessity of -- the Sub-Divisional Officer should guide the applicant to produce necessary evidence.

       Section 6 of the Adhiniyam provides that before issuing any notice to the other side the S.D.O. has to make a preliminary enquiry. first to ascertain whether the transaction of Joan is a prohibited transaction of loan and thereafter on being satisfied he has to record reasons thereof and then to proceed to conduct an enquiry. Sub-section (4) of section 6 casts a duty on the S.D.O. to ascertain the true nature of transaction of loan with respect to the facts mentioned therein. [Para 13

       The Sub-Divisional Officer has not at all cared to look into the provisions of law nor did he ask the applicant to produce documentary evidence of khasra which was expected from him especially when a lawyer is not allowed to appear before him in such a case. The S.D.O. is, therefore, expected to guide the applicant on these matters as many of the applicants are poor and illiterate and unless and until they receive atleast, the necessary guidance from the S.D.O. as to what documents are required to be filed by the applicant, what sort of evidence he should lead in support of his contentions, the purpose of the Act would be frustrated and bona fide and genuine persons will be deprived of getting any benefit under the provisions of the Act. [Para 16

       It bas to be borne in mind that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who are educated, well qualified and are holding important positions in the Government as also in public life and are economically sound with social status cannot get such economic advantages, merely because initially they belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. All these facilities and provisions are meant mainly for economically and socially backward people. Therefore, the words in section 2 (c) of the Act which defines "holder of agricultural land", is restricted to only those persons in "the weaker section of the people" and not every holder of agricultural land who has less than 8 hectares of un-irrigated land and 4 hectares of irrigated land and it is only such people who have been exploited in relation to their agricultural lands, that their transaction could be covered under the definition of S. 2 (f) "prohibited transaction of loan". [Para 20