CHHEDILAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for review of this Court's order dated 14-8-1980 passed on Misc. Petition No. 422 of 1980 dismissing petitioner's petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated 17-12-1979 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patan under Section 7 of the M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ke Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (Act No. 3 of 1977).

(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition had claimed that the transaction in question which was held to be a prohibited transaction of loan by the Sub- Divisional Officer was in fact not a transaction of loan but of out-right sale of agricultural land, and, therefore, the impugned order declaring it to be void under Section 7 of the Act was illegal. This Court held that a finding of fact had been recorded by the competent authority i.e, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the same was confirmed by the Collector who was the appellate authority and there was no basis for interfering with this finding in the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner then filed the present review petition on the ground that in the writ petition he had omitted to raise some points which go to the root of the matter. The new points which the petitioner has now sought to raise are :-- i. Act No. 3 of 1977 is ultra vires Article 246 of the Constitution because the State Legislature was not competent to pass such an Act. ii. A holder of agricultural land under Act No. 3 of 1977 is a person holding 8 hectares unirrigated or 4 hectares irrigated land. Under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, a holder who is not a member of a family cannot possess more than 30 acres of unirrigated land (which comes to about 8 hectares). Such other agriculturists holding lands up to the ceiling limit under the P. M. Law are governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Transfer, of Property Act, the Contract Act and other Acts dealing with moneylending and relief of rural indebtedness. In cases falling under these several enactments the forum for decision whether a transaction is a mortgage or not is determined by a Civil Court while the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of holders of agricultural land falling under Act No. 3 of 1977 which makes special provision for certain class of landholders. The Act, therefore, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. iii. Provisions of Sections 2 (c), (d), (f), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution because the petitioner who also holds land less than 4 hectares of irrigated land and eight hectares of unirrigated land is denied equality of laws and equal protection of the laws. iv. The petitioner is denied the right to file a written statement and to engage a legal practitioner for defending his case and such denial of procedural safeguards under the Code of Civil Procedure violates his right of equality before law and equal protection of the laws.