Suraj Singh Vs. State
of M.P. & Ors. [2009] INSC 34 (9 January 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.58 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3193 of
2004) Suraj Singh ...Appellant(s) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
...Respondent(s) With Civil Appeal No.63/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No.12082/2004
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellants filed
petitions under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke
Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambhandhi
Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, (for short `the Adhiniyam')
and claimed relief under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam by asserting that they
belong to the category of weaker section of the backward caste; that they
borrowed amount from Jai Kumar Jain (husband of respondent No.4 herein) and
executed sale deed of land measuring 1.32 and 2.57 hectares respectively as
security for return of the borrowed money; that they have repaid the loan
within one year but instead of canceling the sale deeds, Jai Kumar Jain, in
connivance with the revenue authorities, got the name of his wife, Smt. Sampat
Bai, mutated in the revenue records.
....2/- - 2- The
Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom petitions were filed issued notice to
respondent No.4, heard the parties and passed order dated 22.6.1999 whereby he
declared the sale transactions as null and void under Section 7 of the
Adhiniyam and directed the concerned Patwari to delete the land which was
subject matter of sale deeds from the land record of respondent No.4 and
include the same in the land record of the petitioners (appellants herein).
Respondent No.4 challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Officer by filing
appeals under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, which were allowed by the Collector
on the premise that the appellants do not belong to weaker section. The
Collector observed that the Sub Divisional Officer did not conduct enquiry in
accordance with Section 6 of the Adhiniyam and held that he could not have
nullified the sale deeds on the basis of preliminary enquiry. The writ
petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the Collector were
dismissed by the learned Single Judge who confirmed the finding of the
Collector that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable to the cases
of the appellants herein.
Writ appeals
preferred by the appellants were dismissed by the Division Bench.
Hence, these appeals
by special leave.
We have heard learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only question which requires
consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants fall within the ambit
of the expression `holder of agricultural land' as defined in Section 2(c) of
the Adhiniyam, which reads as under:
"'holder of
agricultural land' in the weaker sections of the people means a holder of land
used for purposes of Agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated
land or four hectares of irrigated within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or
an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in any one or all of the
capacities together within the meaning of the Code.
....3/- -3-
Explanation.- One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two hectares of
unirrigated land and vice-versa."
From a bare perusal
of the above reproduced definition, it becomes clear that a person holding land
not exceeding eight hectares (unirrigated) or four hectares (irrigated) which
is used for agricultural purposes, whether as a Bhumiswami or as a occupancy
tenant or a Government lessee, is covered by the definition of the `holder of
agricultural land' in the weaker sections of the people. In terms of Section 5,
such person is entitled to protection and relief under the Adhiniyam, which has
been enacted for protecting weaker sections of the people who are often
compelled to seek loan from private money lending agency to meet their
obligations and are coerced to transfer their agricultural holdings for
securing repayment of loan. The revenue records produced before the Court shows
that the appellants in civil appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3193 of 2004
and S.L.P.(C) No.12082 of 2004 were holding 1.32 and 2.57 hectares of land
respectively. The Sub Divisional Officer examined the records and concluded
that they are entitled to protection under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam because
the sale deeds executed by them in favour of Jai Kumar Jain fall in the
category of prohibited transactions within the meaning of Section 4 of the
Adhiniyam. While allowing the appeals filed by respondent No.4, the Collector
held that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable to the appellants
herein but he did not assign any reason for recording that finding. The
Collector also observed that the sale deeds are not vitiated by fraud but while
doing so he ....4/- -4- completely ignored Sections 3 and 4 of the Adhiniyam
which give overriding effect to the provisions of the Adhiniyam and declare
that all prohibited transactions of loan as defined in Section 2(f) are subject
to the protection and relief under the Adhiniyam. The learned Single Judge of
the High Court confirmed the order of the Collector by relying upon the
statement made by the appellants herein in which they are said to have admitted
that apart from doing agricultural operations, they were having a shop, floor
mill, a motorcycle, buffalos and other animals. In the opinion of the learned
Single Judge, the appellants do not belong to the weaker section because they
were not wholly dependent on agriculture. The Division Bench simply reiterated
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the letters patent
appeals.
In our view, the
order of the Collector is vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the
record because while allowing the appeals of respondent No.4, he did not
consider the relevant provisions of the Adhiniyam and did not assign any reason
why provisions thereof are not applicable to the appellants. The observations
of the Collector that the appellants herein were holding more land is ex facie
contrary to the revenue records. The learned Single Judge repeated the error
committed by the Collector and went a step further by observing that the
appellants cannot be said to belong to weaker section because they were having
a shop, floor mill, motorcycle, buffalos and other animals. Since, the
definition of `holder of agricultural land' contained in Section 2(c) does not
exclude a person having a floor mill or a shop, dismissal of the writ petitions
by the learned Single Judge and letters patent appeals by the Division Bench
only on the ground that the appellants possessed shop, floor mill, etc. cannot
be sustained.
....5/- -5-
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders passed by the Collector
and confirmed by the High Court in writ petitions as well as in letters patent
appeals are set aside and the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer are
restored.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New
Delhi,
January
09, 2009.
Back
Pages: 1 2