(1.) In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged a peculiar order pased by the Debt Settlement Officer. Surendranagar unde Sec. 16 of the Gujarat Rulral Debtors' Relief Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as confirmed by the appellate authority, namely, the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Rural Debt), Rajkot.
(2.) The facts which can be gathered from the petition are as following : The respondent No. 1-Harijan Mitha Duda filed an application under Sec. 6(1) of the Act before the Debt Settlement Officer, Surendranagar. It was mentioned therein that the land bearing Survey No. 358 admeasuring 5 acres and 20 gunthas had been mortgaged by the respondent No. 1 with the petitioner. It was, however, pointed out by the petitioner that the said land had been released after the respondent paid the dues to the petitioner. Before the Debt Settlement Officer, the respondent No. 1 deposed that he had mortgaged Survey No. 358 with the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 8,000/ -, but he had sold it under pressure from the petitioner-creditor and had paid his dues. This was the only real evidence recorded by the Debt Settlement Officer; but, neither the document of mortgage nor the document of sale executed by the respondent No. 1 was placed on record. Incidentally it may be stated that, according to the petitioner the land was sold by the respondent No. 1 to one Dahya Chhagan and Kikiben for Rs. 26,000.00. The Debt Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was a small farmer as contemplated in clause (5) of Sec. 2 of the Act, in view of the fact that he was holding only 7 acres and 8 gunthas of land. The Debt Settlement Officer passed an order under Sec. 8(3) of the Act, discharging the debt of respondent No. 1 completely, even though, he did not give the requisite finding that the debtor's income did not exceed Rs. 4800/ - per year. In fact, no evidence was led in respect of the income of the respondent No. 1. The Debt Settlement Officer further relied upon the oral statement of the respondent No. 1 to the effect that he had sold the land because of the pressure from the creditors. The Debt Settlement Officer held that the petitioner-creditor was unable to deliver possession of the property to the respondent No. 1, and so, he was ordered to pay Rs. 8,000.00, which was the amount of the debt incurred by the respondent No. 1, to the respondent No. 1. Similarly, the other creditor Magan Nanji was directed to pay Rs. 4,000.00 to the respondent No. 1. The Debt Settlement Officer also held that the creditors had committed an offence under Sec. 17 of the Act, and so, they were liable to pay the amount of debt to the debtor.
(3.) The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 namely, Manji Nanji, filed Appeal No. 131 which came to be heard and dismissed by the District Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Rural Debts), Rajkot. Even the appellate authority did not consider whether the requirements of Sec. 8(3) were completely satisfied. The appellate authority also proceeded on the ground that the petitionercreditor had committed an offence under Sec. 17(c) of the Act and, therefore, he should be directed to pay the amount recovered by him.