PARMAR GOVIND JESANG Vs. PARMAR AJMAL ARJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Debt Settlement Officer, Surendranagar, scaling down the respondent's debt to Rs. 1,400.00 for quashing the order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer, Surendranagar and as confirmed by the Appellate Officer. payable in 10 equal instalments and confirming the order of the appellate authority dated 18-7-1979.

(2.) The following facts emerge from the impugned order as well as the petition : The respondent No. 1-Parmar Ajmal Arjan of village Rampara, Taluka Wadhwan, District Surendranagar, submitted an application as a small farmer under Sec. 6(1) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for setting his debt of Rs. 16,000.00. Necessary notices were served and statements were recorded by the Debt Settlements Officer. According to the respondent, his father left three heirs, namely the respondent, his brother and sister in joint possession of 34 acres and 5 gunthas of land in village Rampara. It appears from Annexure "H" that the respondent and his brother applied to the Talati on 25-4-1978 for mutation of these lands in the names of the three heirs jointly. It is, therefore, obvious that till 25-4-1978 the lands were joint properties of the respondent and his brother and his sister. It also appears from Annexure "I" that the respondent's sister Dhaniben wanted to relinquish her share in the said property and the respondent and his brother wanted the Talati to record a private settlement regarding partition of land to the effect that the respondent would be holding 6 acres and 2 gunthas of land, while his brother would be holding 21 acres and 38 gunthas of land. The Debt Settlement Officer, therefore, held that the respondent was a small farmer inasmuch as he was holding less than 3.44 hectres as prescribed for Surendranagar District in the schedule annexed with. He, further held that though there was a well in the land held by the respondent, the land could not be said to be perennially irrigated land. As a result, he reduced the respondent's debt to Rs. 1,400.00, as per subsec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act. This order was confirmed by the appellate officer, respondent No. 3 herein.

(3.) In this petition it is urged that the alleged partition between the two brothers and the alleged transfer of 6 acres and 29 gunthas by the respondent was only with a view to defeat the petitioner's claim under the Act. It is further urged that even taking the respondent's case at its face value, there is a well in the land admeasuring 6 acres and 2 gunthas coming to the share of the respondent and so it being irrigated land, the real area of the land deemed to be held by him for the purpose of Sec. 2 for determining whether the debtor is a small farmer, should be considered to be twice the extent of such irrigated land as per Explanation-I in the definition "small farmer" contained in clause (p) of Sec. 2 of the Act. It is also urged that the total debt could not be reduced to Rs. 1,400.00 (Rupees Fourteen hundred) in any event.