RAMLAKHAN Vs. PAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, is challenging the order of the Collector in appeal affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, allowing the respondent No. 1's application under S.5 of the M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the (Act)) and setting aside the sale deed in favour of the petitioner executed by the respondent No. 1 as being a prohibited transaction of loan.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Pamma is a cultivator of village Satnur, Tahsil and District Chhindwara. By registered sale deed dated 26-5-1966, he and his wife Shyambati sold 8,11 acres with a house and well out of Khasra Nos. 110/1 and 111, total area 39.85 acres, to the petitioner Ramlakhan for Rs. 12,500/-. The lands are unirrigated. On the same day the petitioner executed an Ikrarnama agreeing to reconvey the land if the amount is repaid within one year. The land was duly mutated in the name of petitioner. On 4-4-1981, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under S.5 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, alleging that it was a prohibited transaction of loan, no possession was delivered, a written Ikrarnama was executed that if the loan was repaid within one year, the land would be reconveyed, subsequently time of repayment was extended indefinitely, he had paid Rs. 9000/- but the petitioner illegally dispossessed him on 29-5-1968 and the market value of the land was Rs. 50,000/- on the date of sale. The application was opposed by the petitioner saying that it was an outright sale, he was immediately put in possession, the respondent No. 1 was not a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people, as he held 17 acres of land after the sale, it was neither a loan transaction nor the petitioner has dispossessed him and a false application has been filed after lapse of 10 years. After recording evidence, the S. D. O. held that it was a prohibited transaction of loan because the sale was with a condition of repurchase on payment within a period of one year but afterwards the time of repayment was extended indefinitely, the loan was subsisting on the appointed day, the market value of the land with a house and well was over Rs. 40,000/- no possession was given but the petitioner dispossessed the respondent No. 1 on 29-5-1968. Rs. 9000/- has been repaid by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was a money-lender. So the sale has been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to restore possession to respondent No. 1 as he has already recovered the balance amount of Rs. 3500/- by enjoying the usufruct of the land all these years. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Collector, holding that the respondent No. 1 was a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people owning less than 8 hectares of land on the appointed date, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the respondent No. 1 held more than eight hectares of land, as there was a condition of repurchase, it was a loan transaction and not a sale.

(3.) The only question raised by the petitioner is that the Collector and the S. D. O. misdirected themselves by holding that the respondent No. 1 was a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people on the appointed date i.e. 1-1-1971, when they ought to have found out whether he was a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people on the date of the transaction i.e. 26-5-1966. It is also urged that on the date of the transaction, the respondent No. 1 and his wife Shyambati jointly held 39.85 acres of land each holding 19.925 acres which is more than eight hectares, i.e. 19.77 acres (one hectare being equal to 2.471 acres), so the respondent No. 1 was not a marginal farmer. The respondent No. 1 submitted that there are concurrent findings that the respondent No. 1 was a holder of land in the weaker section of the people, it was a prohibited transaction of loan, which was subsisting on the appointed date, based on evidence and are unassailable in the writ petition.