VENKATESHWAR RAO Vs. AGRL DEV OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a batch of Writ Petitions filed by the Writ Petitioners challenging the several acts of the various officers of the Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank attaching the tractors belonging to the writ petitioners for the realisation of loans earlier advanced by the various branches of the Agricultural Development Bank to the writ petitioners for the specific purpose of enabling them to purchase the tractors. Some of these matters have come before us as writ petitions and some others have come before us by way of writ appeals. The facts in all the cases are common and the arguments are also similar. We, therefore, set out the tacts in Writ Petition No. 4593/81 against which Writ Appeal No. 136/82 is preferred, as a representative'sample of all the facts and contentions involved in all the Writ Petitions.

(2.) The 1st writ petitioner, V. Venkateswara Rao and his son, the 2ndwrit petitioner Sham Babu borrowed Rs. 40.000/-, Rs. 35,000/- respectively in the last part of the year 1978 from the Agricultural Development Bank, Bodhan of Nizamabad District under the terms of the contract of loan these amounts are repayable in yearly instalments on 1st of April of every calendar year. Tie two loans were advanced for the agricultural purpose of purchasing a tractor. At the time of the granting of these loans the father and the son mortgaged not only the tractor but also their lands on 28th of October 1978 as an additional security for repayment of those loam. Subsequently the father and the son have failed to pay the instalments due on the loans which they had borrowed. The father was due to pay a sum of Rs. 9,338-68 white the son was due to pay a sum of Rs. 7,427-70. The Bank Officer, called the Sale Officer, therefore, served a demand notice on the father and the son on 19th of June, 1981 demanding the payment of the instalment amounts due. When the father and the son failed to pay the instalment amounts due, the Officer seized and distrained the tractor, APU 5812 which was purchased with the money loaned by the Bank.

(3.) The father and the son had, therefore, filed Writ Petition No, 4593/81 for a declaration that the action of the Sale Officer, Agricultural Development Bank, Bodhan, attaching the tractor belonging to the writ petitioners and seeking to sell the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. Their argument is that the tractor is an agricultural implement and as such the tractor is exempt from attachment. The counter argument of the Bank is that the tractor is not an agricultural implement and it has no immunity from being attached for the lealisation of the instalment money due.