SHANKAR NAGU Vs. MAHIBUB BANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner made an application under Section 4, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act for the adjustment of his debts. That application was dismissed and there was an appeal to the learned District Judge who confirmed the order of the trial Court.

(2.) Now, it has been found as a fact that a Board for adjustment of debts was established in Pandharpur, the area with which we are concerned, on January 1, 1942, and the last date for making an application for the adjustment of debts under the old Act of 1939 was June 30, 1943, and it has been found that the petitioner was a debtor within the meaning of the old Act and he should have made an application under the provisions of the old Act. If that be so, it is clear that his application under Section 4 of the present Act is barred. Section 4 requires three conditions. He must be a debtor, he must make an application before August 1, 1947, and also in the area in which he resides no Board under the repealed Act must have been established before February 1, 1947. Therefore, if a Board was established prior to February 1, 1947, the section bars his application. If the Board was established after February 1, 1947, then the application must be made before August 1, 1947. It is not disputed before me by Mr. Chandrachud that the decision of the Courts below that the petitioner's application was barred under Section 4 is correct, but what is contended is that the petitioner should have been permitted to make an application under Section 24 (2). There is no finding by the Courts below as to whether the petitioner is an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the Act. That finding was thought unnecessary because the view taken by the learned District Judge was that if the petitioner was a debtor within the meaning of the Act of 1939, then he could not make an application under Section 24 (2) as an agricultural labourer. In other words, the view taken was that it is only those persons who were not debtors within the meaning of the old Act who could maintain an application as agricultural labourers under Section 24 (2), and what I have to consider in this application is to examine the validity of that argument.

(3.) Mr. Desai has drawn my attention to the scheme of the present Act. Under the old Act Boards were established and time was fixed within which applications were to be made. Boards were not established at the same time in all the areas, but some Boards were established subsequently, and as Boards were established time was fixed in relation to the establishment of the Boards. Therefore, when the new Act came to be passed, it was provided that where Boards were established prior to February 1, 1947, no application could be made under Section 4 because an application could have been made to these Boards under the old Act, and even under the new Act time for making the application was limited to August 1, 1947. Now, what is urged before me by Mr. Desai is that a person who satisfied the qualifications of a debtor under the old Act could have made an application under the old Act and therefore it could not have been the intention of the Legislature that although he failed to make an application under the old Act and therefore his right to get his debts adjusted was barred he should now come, as it were, by a side-wind under Section 24 (2). Under the old Act there was no right specially given to agricultural labourers. Either a person was a debtor or he was not. If he was a debtor within the meaning of the old Act, he had a right to have his debts adjusted. If he was not, he had no right to have his debts adjusted. Under the new Act special rights are conferred upon agricultural labourers. Mr. Desai may be right and the intention of the Legislature may have been what he suggests it was, but I must construe the Act as I find it, and unless the intention appears in language used by the Legislature, I cannot go outside the ambit of the section and speculate as to what the Legislature intended.