FEDERAL BANK LTD Vs. JOSEPH, S/O ULAHANNAN,; RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,; COMPLAINANT REDRESSAL OFFICER AND UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel appearing for the Appellant and Counsel appearing for the first Respondent.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the first Respondent is entitled to full waiver of agricultural loan and interest under the Government Debt Relief Scheme, which is extracted by the learned Single Judge in the judgment. The learned Single Judge has rightly concluded on the scope of ceiling applicable for granting various benefits under the Debt Relief Scheme applicable to farmers. While the case of the Bank is that the Appellant who has agricultural holdings both as owner and lease holder in excess of 5 acres which brings in the definition of other farmers under Clause 3.5 of the scheme, the case of the first Respondent is that his holding is only 4.12 acres. The Bank has produced Ext. R3(b) which is a letter written by the first Respondent to the Bank on 8.6.2006 requesting for enhancement of loan limit from 1.5 lakhs to 5 lakhs which is granted by the Bank.

(3.) On going through Ext. R3(b) written by the 1st Respondent, we find that besides being the owner of 4.5 acres of land, the first Respondent had another extent of 4.5 acres of land on leasehold arrangement from 2004 onwards and it is only to cultivate pineapple in part of the leasehold land, he requested for enhancement of loan. The Bank admittedly granted additional loan and the first Respondent has no case that any other application was submitted for enhancement of the loan. Even though before us counsel for the first Respondent denied the contents of Ext. R3(b), he admits the signature. After having admitted the signature on the application, we do not think there is any bonafides in the denial to the contents of the application because additional loan is always sanctioned only when increased area is available for cultivation. Further it is clear from Ext. R3(b) that 1.5 acres was already mortgaged for the loan availed on 6.12.2005 and the first Respondent was offering mortgage of another 1.5 acres of land for the additional loan sanctioned. It is the Bank's case that only because of the requirement of additional cost for cultivation of additional area that is the leasehold area of 4.5 acres additional loan was sanctioned. We do not find any bonafides in the denials of these facts by the first Respondent.