MANNAN NAIK Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, BASTI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner took an objection in execution of the decree dated 4.4.1970 passed in Suit No. 383 of 1968 by the Munsif, Additional Court, Basti, that he was a marginal fanner and as such the decree had abated as against him in view of Section 4 of the U.P. Debt Relief Act 1977 (Act No. 4 of 1977). The said objection was dismissed by the learned Munsif on 5th September, 1978. An appeal being Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1978 was preferred against the said order. By an order dated 3.5.1979 the said appeal was allowed and the learned Munsif was directed to re -hear the said application after giving opportunity to the petitioner -judgment debtor to adduce evidence to prove that as to whether judgment debtor was a debtor as defined in the said Act and is a marginal farmer or not and then to decide the objection. The learned Munsif thereafter by an order dated 25.7.1980 had come to a finding that the petitioner -judgment debtor was not a marginal farmer and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of Act No. 4 of 1977. Against the said order, Civil Revision No. 111 of 1980 was preferred. By an order dated 5th September, 1981 the said revision was dismissed. It is against these two orders the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. S.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of the revisional court qua that of the learned Munsif are perverse. There were sufficient materials to show that the petitioner was a marginal farmer and was entitled to the benefit of the said Act. Mr. Yadav led me through respective orders as to how the said orders are unreasonable and perverse.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Yadav at length and have also perused the record and gone through the orders. From the revisional order it appears that the learned Munsif had relied on documents produced and evidence adduced in the proceedings in order to come to the finding that the petitioner was not a marginal farmer and was not entitled to the benefit of Act No. 4 of 1977. The revisional court itself had also discussed the materials on record. He had referred to the Khataunies of the years mentioned in paragraph 4 of the revisional order giving details of the said Khataunies in respect of different villages. After referring to these Khataunies he has come to the finding that these Khataunies clearly show that the petitioner owns more than two hectares of land on the date of commencement of the Act and therefore he cannot be said to be a marginal farmer holding land not exceeding 1 hectare. The lands were situated in irrigated areas was also uncontroverted. In the next paragraph namely 5th paragraph, he has also referred to the khasras sought to be relied upon by the petitioner, but those khasras related to the year after 1977 and that too with regard to possession. Therefore, he came to a finding of fact that the petitioner was in possession of the said land. The question is a question of finding of fact on the basis of the assessment of the evidence on record. It is a question of belief or disbelief. Both the learned courts have come to concurrent finding of fact with regard to the question on the basis of materials on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out anything to show that the finding is perverse or that any material evidence was not considered or omitted or anything to show that the finding has been arrived at on the basis of no material.

(3.) THE writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs. The interim order shall stand discharged.