CHHAGANLAL AMBALAL MODI Vs. SARTANBHAI ODHARBHAI RABARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this petition is whether the opponent is a 'rural labourer' as defined in Section 2 (m) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors' Relief Act, 1976. That definition reads as under: Section 2(m): "'Rural labourer' means a person who, being resident in in a rural area, earns his livelihood principally by manual labour from any of the following occupations, but does not hold any land for any such occupations , namely:

(2.) The Debt Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that the opponent-debtor was not a rural labourer. He came to the conclusion that the opponent was working at village Vagda, but was resident of Palanpur. He also came to the conclusion that the opponent-debtor was not engaged in any of the specified occupations and that he was dealing in sale and purchase of buffaloes.

(3.) The appellate authority reversed his findings and came to the conclusion that the opponent-debtor was a rural labourer as he earned his livelihood from manual labour from the occupation of farming by working on the well in the field of Sarpanch of Village Vagda. For that purpose, the appellate authority relied upon the evidence given by the Sarpanch himself and did not believe the evidence of Talati which was believed by the Debt Settlement Officer. On this aspect, there is conflicting evidence and the appellate authority has accepted the evidence of the opponent-debtor. That does not call for any interference because even if two views are possible on acceptance of evidence, that would not justify interference in a writ petition;