NIYAZ AHMAD @ NIZAM Vs. TEHSILDAR, KASHIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Undisputedly, petitioner was granted cash credit loan facility of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the purpose of poultry farming on 13.01.2006; petitioner has mortgaged his agricultural land being Khasra No. 1059/1 measuring 0.1940 hectare situated in village Sarverkhera, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar with the Bank and has executed a Mortgage Deed to the above effect; petitioner /borrower failed to pay the outstanding amount, consequently, a notice dated 07.05.2006 was issued requesting the petitioner to repay the total outstanding amount; petitioner approached the Bank making request to waive the agricultural loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008; petitioner earlier filed WPMS No. 1228 of 2008 seeking waiver of loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008; WPMS No. 1228 of 2008 was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.07.2008 with the direction that petitioner shall move representation seeking benefit of waiver of loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 before the Assistant General Manager of the Bank whereupon Assistant General Manager shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law; petitioner moved representation before the Bank on 13.08.2008 annexing therewith certified copy of the order dated 22.07.2008 passed by this Court in WPMS No. 1228 of 2008; representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Bank vide order dated 24.01.2009 saying since petitioner was granted loan under the cash credit facility, which was not covered under the provision of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, therefore, benefit of waiver could not be extended in favour of the petitioner; recovery certificate was issued to the Collector for recovery of the outstanding amount whereupon impugned citation was issued. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present writ petition.

(2.) Undisputedly, cash credit facility was given to the petitioner for the purpose of poultry farming and mortgaged deed was executed by the petitioner, as per Section 6 (1) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (for short "Act, 1973"). As per Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1973, poultry farming falls under the definition of 'agriculture' and 'agriculture purpose'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since financial assistance, in question, falls within the definition of agricultural loan and petitioner has mortgaged his property in favour of the Bank under Section 6 (1) of the Act 1973, therefore, Bank should have approached the Prescribed Authority under Section 11 of the Act, 1973 wherein petitioner would have been heard on the questions of limitation and on the question of liability to pay outstanding amount and petitioner could have demonstrated his entitlement for the waiver of the agricultural debt under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that to deprive the petitioner to claim benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and to raise the plea of limitation, Bank has issued recovery certificate to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue whereupon impugned citation was wrongly issued. He further contends that the Revenue Authorities are adamant to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the impugned citation.