RADHESHYAM Vs. COLLECTOR, HOSANGABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who admittedly is a money lender has challenged the order of the Sub - Divisional Officer/Debt Relief Court, Hoshangabad, whereby the respondent No.1 whose gold and silver ornaments were pledged with the petitioner for a loan consideration, was held to be a 'Marginal Farmer' as defined in section 2 (g) of the M.P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagan Adhiniyam, 1975 (for short the 'Act') and, therefore, as a consequence which ensued on the commencement of the Act the loan was deemed to be wholly discharged in view of section 4 of the Act.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that there is no finding on the admission made in the statement of the respondent No.3, which clearly shows that respondent No.3 was not a 'Marginal Farmer'. Beside the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit against the respondent No. 3 and her husband (Civil Suit No. 14 -B/81) in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Class -II, Hoshangabad wherien for want of this plea the issue relating to the 'Marginal Farmer' was decided in negative and a decree dt. 27.1.1982 for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/ - was passed, therefore, the order of the S.D.O., and that of the Collector in appeal deserve to be quashed.

(3.) AFTER hearing counsel, I am of the opinion that the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Collector in appeal has recorded a categorical finding that the respondent No.3 falls within the definition of 'Marginal Farmer' and to prove contrary the petitioner has not placed any material nor led any evidence that finding is a finding of fact, hence, no interference can be made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.