KUNJLAL DAS CHHABIL DAS Vs. PREETAM CHAND SUKLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of M. P. No. 145/89, Kunjlaldas and Ors. v. Preetamchand and Ors. , M. P. No. 147/89, Kunjlal Das and Ors. v. Milluram and Ors. and M. P. No. 148/89, Kunjlal and Ors. v. Hakeemchand and Ors. as the common question arises for consideration in these cases.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions are that one Chhabildas filed an application under Section 5 of M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, inter alia pleading that particular agricultural lands were given by him to the respective purchasers in fact as a security against the loan advanced by the said money lender, therefore, and as the transaction was a prohibited transaction of loan, the transaction be declared as a nullity and possession be restored back to him. After notice, the respective defendants/respondents appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer who after making an enquiry and after hearing the parties held that said Chhabildas and after his death his legal representatives were falling within the definition of "holder of agricultural land" and as the transaction was a prohibited transaction of loan, said Chhabildas (since deceased through his legal representatives) was entitled to the relief claimed for. Being aggrieved by the said order, each of the purchaser preferred an appeal under Section 8 of the Act. The Appellate Authority, in its impugned order, held that the application filed by said Chhabildas was barred by limitation and secondly said Chhabildas was not "holder of agricultural land", therefore, he or his legal representatives were not entitled to any relief. He accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have filed these three separate petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioners submits that the Appellate Court was absolutely unjustified in holding that the application filed under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam 1976 was barred by limitation and was also unjustified in holding that said Chhabildas was not holder of the agricultural land. According to him, the Collector could not set aside the well reasoned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.