The definition of "holder of agricultural land" under the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 requires the person to possess not more than eight hectares of unirrigated land on the date of the transaction.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. This order shall dispose of M.P. No. 145/89, Kunjlaldas and Ors. v. Preetamchand and Ors., M.P. No. 147/89, Kunjlal Das and Ors. v. Milluram and Ors. and M.P. No. 148/89, Kunjlal and Ors. v. Hakeemchand and Ors. as the common question arises for consideration in these cases.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions are that one Chhabildas filed an application under Section 5 of M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, inter alia pleading that particular agricultural lands were given by him to the respective purchasers in fact as a security against the loan advanced by the said money lender, therefore, and as the transaction was a prohibited transaction of loan, the transaction be declared as a nullity and possession be restored back to him. After notice, the respective defendants/respondents appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer who after making an enquiry and after hearing the parties held that said Chhabildas and after his death his legal representatives were falling within the definition of "holder of agricultural land" and as the transaction was a prohibited transaction of loan, said Chhabildas (since deceased through his legal representatives) was entitled to the relief claimed for. Being aggrieved by the said order, each of the purchaser preferred an appeal under Section 8 of the Act. The Appellate Authority, in its impugned order, held that the application filed by said Chhabildas was barred by limitation and secondly said Chhabildas was not "holder of agricultural land", therefore, he or his legal representatives were not entitled to any relief. He accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have filed these three separate petitions.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Appellate Court was absolutely unjustified in holding that the application filed under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam 1976 was barred by limitation and was also unjustified in holding that said Chhabildas was not holder of the agricultural land. According to him, the Collector could not set aside the well reasoned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the State has not made any comments.

5. In the matter of Jahar Singh and Anr. v. Collector, Shivpuri and Ors., AIR 1988 M.P. 311, the Court has recorded a finding that the Adhiniyam is not a temporary enactment but a perpetual one. The Division Bench was also of the opinion that Sections 4, 5 and 6 and Rules 1 and 3 of 1978 Rules cannot be invoked to hold that it is enacted with a limited life. The Court was also of the opinion that in view of Sections 12, 15 and 16 intention of legislature is clear that Adhiniyam was enacted as permanent measure. Apart from this, it is not in dispute that the period for filing the application was extended from time to time. In view of the dictum of this Court and the extension notifications issued by the State Government, it cannot be held that the application filed by said Chhabildas was barred by limitation.

6. For appreciation of the second question raised by the learned counsel for petitioners, it is necessary to see that what was in fact the intention of the legislature.

7. The preamble of the Act says that present is an Act to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabbing designs resorted to in many a form by lenders of money while and after extending credit to them and matters connected therewith. The preamble further says that whereas it is necessary to relieve the holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people from such exploitation by nullifying such past transaction of loan as also to put a stop to such transaction.

8.