(1.) The petitioner has challenged the orders by the appellate authority and the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Rural Debt) Bharuch, in Appeal Case No. 125, setting aside the order by the Debt Settlement Officer issuing the certificate only on the ground that the income of the petitioner is Rs. 6000/- per annum and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to relief under Section 3 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1976 (Act, for short). The appellate authority, however, agreed with the Debt Settlement Officer that the petitioner is a small farmer and the relationship of debtor and creditor existed between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 - Chandubhai C. Patel as the land bearing S. No. 333, admeasuring 2 acres 14 gunthas of village Vaghodia, was put under mortgage to the respondent No.3 by the petitioner for Rs. 4000/- on or about May 11, 1971 and since then the respondent No.3 is in possession and cultivating the said land.
(2.) The fact found by both the authorities is that the petitioner is the occupant of S. No. 333 admeasuring 2 acres 14 gunthas of village Vaghodia. The petitioner mortgaged the said land to the respondent No.3 for Rs. 4000/- on May 11, 1971 and the writing on the stamp paper bearing stamp of Rs. 1.50 was executed and the respondent No.3 agreed to hand over the possession of the land on repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 4000/- and as possession of the land was handed over on the strength of the mortgage transactions the interest was not to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.3. It is also admitted that the respondent No.3 is in possession of the land and he had agreed to hand over the possession of the land on repayment of amount of Rs. 4000/-. The relationship of debtor and creditor existed between the petitioner and the respondent No.3. It is also recorded by the authorities below that the petitioner is a small farmer, as defined in clause (p) of Section 2 of the Act. The Debt Settlement Officer considering the facts and the relationship of debtor and creditor, allowed the application by the petitioner and issued certificate in Form No.12 in accordance with the provisions of Item (b) of clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Act and Rule 13, Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Rules, and also directed to hand over possession of S.No.33 admeasuring 2 acres 14 gunthas of village Vaghodia within 30 days.
(3.) Infirmity is that the certificate dated June 1, 1980 does not indicate as to for which year the said income of Rs. 6000/- p.a. is relating to. It is not stated that the income of Rs. 6000/- is for particular year. Even though it is not specified in the Act that the income for the particular year should be considered, it clearly indicates that the income for the purpose of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act should be of the year of the 'appointed day' or at the most of the year preceding the appointed day. This is clear from the provisions of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act. Under Section 3 the debt is discharged or reduced on or from the appointed day, if the income of the small farmer does not exceed Rs. 4800/- per year. Reference to that year should be the year in which the 'appointed day' falls. The Act came into effect from August 15, 1976 and, therefore, the income of the year 1976 should be considered for ascertaining as to whether the income of the debtor or a farmer exceeded Rs. 4800/- per year. In Explanation 1, Sub-Section (1) of Section 3, the income per year in relation to the rural artisan, should be the average annual income of such artisan of three years immediately preceding the appointed day. As it relates to the artisan, it also indicates that the income of the small farmer should be the income when the Act came in force, i.e. the appointed day. No evidence was produced by the respondent No.3 to establish the income of the petitioner in the year 1976 or in any other relevant year. It is only vaguely stated in the certificate dated June 1, 1980 that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 6000/-. As the respondent No.3 did not lead any evidence to establish that the income of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 4800/- at the relevant time, the appellate officer should not have held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under Sections 3 and 8 of the Act. The appellate officer erred in law and the order is nothing but perverse requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.