HARWANSH KUMAR PATEL Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER MANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23-5-1988 (Annexure P-1) of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mandla.

(2.) Respondent No. 2, Smt. Godawaribai submitted an application under Section 6 of the M.P. Gramin Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) stating therein that her husband Ram Bharos had pledged a golden hasli of about 16 tolas with Shankarlal Patel, who was the original petitioner in this petition before 15-8-1982. It was also stated therein that the respondent No. 2 and her husband both were "marginal farmers" within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer by the impugned order dated 23-5-1988 held that the respondent No. 2 was holding 1.90 acres of agricultural land and therefore, she was a "marginal farmer". He also found that the transaction of pledge had taken place prior to 16-8-1982. He directed Shankarlal Patel to return the golden hasli to the respondent No. 2 on payment of Rs. 1,275/- and the interest.

(3.) The learned counsel for both the sides were heard. There is no finding in the impugned order that the land held by the respondent No. 2 is irrigated or unirrigated. The respondent No. 2 is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. According to Section 2 (g) (ii) of the Act, the "marginal farmer" means an agriculturist who holds agricultural land not exceeding half hectare, if irrigated or one hectare if unirrigated and who personally cultivates such land. The land held by the respondent No. 2 is more than half hectare. Therefore, she would come in the category of "marginal farmer", if 1.90 acres of land held by her isunirrigated and if she personally cultivates such land. It was necessary for the Sub-Divisional Officer to record the finding on this point in order to bring the respondent No. 2 within the definition of "marginal farmer".