Krishan Rao vs Vishwa Chandra - 1997 Supreme(MP) 1087

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.N. Agarwal
For the Respondents: V. Awasthy

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227 – petition under – High Court will not determine valuation of land.
       (2) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) – S. 7 (1) (ii) (b) – amount ordered to be paid – opponent is or is not a moneylender is immaterial – Act uses ‘lender of money’ and not ‘money lender’.
        Short Note
       1. By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dt. 16.7.85 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Burhanpur in Case No. 23 – B/121 of 83 – 84 and the order dt. 20.3.86 passed by the appellate authority/Collector, Khandwa and has prayed for quashing of the same.
       2. The Sub – Divisional – Officer, Burhanpur on 16.7.85 passed an order in favour of the petitioners directing for payment of the amount in respect of the land to the tune of Rs. 5,244/ – under section 7 (1) (ii) (b) 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). This order was challenged by way of an appeal under section 8 of the Act before the Collector. The Collector after making enquiry affirmed the order.
       3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.
       4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the valuation has been given lesser than what actually it was. So far as this submission is concerned, it has no substance and this Court is not supposed to go into the question of determination of valuation.
       5. The second submission advanced by him is that under section 7 (1) (ii) (b) of the Act, the difference of price could be directed to be paid by any money – lender only when in the opinion of the Sub – Divisional – Officer it is feasible to restore the possession of the land.
       6. In the present case, the trial Court has recorded the finding that it has not been proved by the applicant that the respondent in – fact was money – lender. So far as the question of money – lender is concerned it is not relevant. The Act uses the word 'Lender of Money' instead of 'Money – lender'. The finding has been recorded that the sale deed was by way of 'Rehannama'. On account of such a finding, the petitioners were not entitled for any relief under the law. Since the other side has not come to the Court, the matter cannot be decided against the present petitioners.
       7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Security amount if any deposited, shall be refunded.