NITUBHA GUMANSANG RANA Vs. VAJUBHA GUMANSANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this petition the validity of the order dated 4th December 1979 (Annexure "B") passed by the Appellate Officer (Rural Debt) and the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajkot. The Appellate Officer has reversed and set aside the order dated 15th November 1978 (Annexure "A) passed by the Debt Settlement Officer, Surendranagar, by holding that the petitioner was not a small farmer as defined under Section 2 (p) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976 on the appointed day, i. e. 15th August 1976.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that when the petitioner filled in the form, the petitioner was an owner of Survey No. 357 of village Gedi admeasuring 4 acres - 14 gunthas (1H.-76A.- 04 Sq. Mt.) That area is less than the limits of Hectares 3-03 prescribed in the Schedule for deciding who shall be 'Small farmer' as held by the Debt Settlement Officer and, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Officer is illegal.

(3.) Considering the facts stated in the petition and the finding of the Appellate Officer it is clear that the petitioner himself has admitted that the petitioner was an owner of 19 acres -18 gunthas of land prior to 29th November 1976. It is the say of the petitioner that by a registered partition dated 29th November 1976 the petitioner has partitioned the said land between himself, his son and wife. In paragraph 8 of the petition it is specifically mentioned that this partition deed dated 29th November 1976 was presented before the Sub-Registrar on the same day. Therefore, from.29th November 1976 he was holding only 4 acres - 10 gunthas of land which came to his share. It is also contended that mutation entry in revenue record was not relevant for determining the holding of the petitioner on the appointed day. In my view, even accepting the contention of the petitioner that in the present case mutation entry in the revenue record was not relevant for determining the holding of petitioner, yet he cannot be held to be small farmer. Relevant date for deciding whether the petitioner is a small farmer is the 'appointed day' which is 15th August 1976. It is an admitted fact that on the appointed day the petitioner was holding land admeasuring 19 acres - 18 gunthas. As contended by the petitioner, partition took place only on 29-11-76. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the appointed day the petitioner was small holder as defined under Section 2(p) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order Annexure "B" passed by the Appellate Officer is in any way illegal or erroneous. Rule discharged.