RAJGOR KANJI BHURABHAI Vs. ANANDBHAI LALJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition the petitioner challenges the order of Debt Settlement Officer dated 16.9.1981 as affirmed by the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Rural Debt), Rajkot, by his order dated 11.11.1982/1.12.1982. According to the petitioner, he entered into an agreement to purchase a land bearing survey no. 36 situated at village Movana admeasuring 4 acres 4 gunthas for a sum of Rs. 25,000 from the respondent no. 1 - Anandbhai Laljibhai. The entire amount was paid to the respondent by 11.12.1977 and the writing was executed on the stamp paper. However, before the sale deed could be registered, the respondent no. 1 approached the Debt Scuicment Officer under the provisions of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1972. Overruling the objection made by the petitioner, the Debt Settlement Officer held the respondent no. 1 to be a marginal fanner and has exonerated him from the payment of the debt under the Act by his order dated 16.9.1981 On appeal, the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Rural Debt), Rajkot, affirmed that order.

(2.) The petitioner challenges these orders on the ground that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record in the orders passed by the lower authorities and in arriving at a finding that the respondent no. 1 is a marginal fanner. According to the petitioner respondent no. 1 is a registered medical practitioner and his name has been enrolled at serial no. 68 of the Saurashtra Homoeopathic Medical Association in its Annual Report of 1966-67. To the aforesaid averment of the petitioner, no written statement has been made denying the same. The appellate authority has rejected the objection of .the petitioner on die ground that there is no material on the record to suggest that the respondent no. 1 in this petition is a doctor.

(3.) The petitioner has pointed out from Annexure-A which is agreement to sell, executed by the respondent no. 1, wherein he has admitted himself to be a doctor and has also admitted that he has taken a loan of Rs. 7,000 for the purpose of developing his medical profession. This document was before the authority deciding the issue. Having considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the documents, I am of the opinion that the orders under challenge suffer from error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the objections raised by the petitioner about the status of the respondent as a debtor and the applicability of provisions of the Act have been overruled by ignoring the material on record. This finding has vitally affected the decision about the applicability of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act, 1972, to the alleged debtor in question. This alone is sufficient to allow the petition.