Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48639
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/12230/2009
SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH, SRI.C.V.ANTONY FOR R2, SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY FOR R2 & R3, SRI.A.ANTONY FOR R3, SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIMKHAN, ASG
Eligibility for debt relief under the scheme must focus on the area actually cultivated rather than the total land owned or leased by the farmer.
Headnote:
Waiver - Agricultural Debt Relief - Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 - Invalid classification of petitioner based on total land ownership instead of cultivated area leading to erroneous denial of benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought waiver under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme after defaulting on loans. The Bank classified him as 'Other Farmer' based on his total land, denying full waiver claiming he exceeded land limits for debt relief.
Issues: Whether the classification of the petitioner as 'Other Farmer' for debt relief was justifiable based on total land ownership rather than the area actually cultivated.
Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for debt waiver must be determined according to cultivated area, aligning with scheme definitions which emphasize 'farmer cultivating' rather than mere land ownership.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Bank's order and directed a re-evaluation of the petitioner's eligibility for waiver based on cultivated area.
J U D G M E N T
The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P2 and to direct the respondents to grant waiver of the liability of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1, the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 introduced by the Government of India.
2. Going by the undisputed facts of this case, the petitioner originally availed of two agricultural loans, for Rs.1.15 lakhs under the ACC Scheme and Rs.1.10 lakhs under the AMTL Scheme. Subsequently, he applied for limit enhancement of the loan availed of under the ACC Scheme to Rs.5 lakhs retaining the AMTL loan. Ext.R3(a) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the Bank is the loan application, which states that the petitioner owns 4.12 acres of land. It is also stated that he holds 4.5 acres of land on lease for 3 years from 2004. Ext.R3(b) is a letter submitted by the petitioner requesting the Manager of the Bank to sanction the enhanced limit immediately as “I require funds to start pineapple cultivation in 2.16 acres (out of 4.50 acres) in the leased land”. Accordingly, request for enhancement :2 :
was allowed and the amount was availed of .
3. Default was committed, and when the liability was thus remaining outstanding, Ext.P1 Scheme was introduced by the Government. In terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P1 Scheme, the Bank prepared a list of defaulters eligible for the benefit of the Scheme. But, however, the list did not include the petitioner as eligible for complete waiver of the dues. That made the petitioner to file a complaint before the Grievance Redressal Officer appointed under the Scheme. His complaint was considered and was rejected as per Ext.P2 order stating that it is on the basis of the extent of land declared at the time of availing of the loan that the beneficiaries are classified, and that at the time when the loan was availed of, the petitioner had produced documents evidencing that he had more than 5 acres of land. On this basis, it is stated that he is not eligible for full waiver as contemplated in Ext.P1. It is thereupon that this writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 order and to direct the respondents to extend the eligible benefit under Ext.P1 Scheme.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Bank, though there is no dispute about the loans availed of by the petitioner, what is :3 :
contended is that at the time of enhancement of the limit of loan, the petitioner had declared himself to be owning 4.12 acres of land and possessing 4.50 acres of land as lessee. It is therefore stated that the total extent of land held by the petitioner as owner and lessee is 8.62 acres of land. According to the Bank, such a borrower is only an other farmer eligible for debt relief under Ext.P1 scheme since the extent of land owned/cultivated is more than 5 acres. Respondent Bank is also placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.36483/08, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in its judgment in WA 372/09.
5. A reading of Ext.P2 order and the counter affidavit filed by the Bank shows that the ground on which the benefit of full waiver as contemplated under Ext.P1 was denied to the petitioner only for the reason that, going by the application filed by the petitioner at the time when he applied for enhancement of limit of loan, he had mentioned that he had 4.12 acres of land as owner and that he was holding 4.50 acres of land as lessee. The question is, whether going by the provisions of Ext.P1 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 , the Bank is right in the stand adopted by it.
:4 :
6. Marginal Farmer, Small Farmer and Other Farmer have been defined in Clauses 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 which reads as under.
3.5. 'Marginal Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land up to 1 hectare (2.5 acres)
3.6. ' Small Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres)
3.7. 'Othe
