BALCHAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the following circumstances:

(2.) THE petitioner, Bal Chand, took a loan of Rs. 4,554. 71 from the Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur, for seed and fertiliser. As the said amount was not paid back by the petitioner, proceedings for recovery were initiated against him. THE petitioner filed an application u/s. 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (For short, hereinafter the Act), contending that he was an agriculturist, and that, the Debt Relief Court should determine his debt. THE Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur contested the application contending that the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 6 of the Act, was not maintainable as the loan granted by the Panchayat Samiti to the petitioner, did not fall within the definition of the term "debt" as given in clause (c) of section 2 of the Act. THE learned Debt Relief Court framed a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the application under Sec. 6 of the Act. THE learned Debt Relief Court after hearing the arguments on preliminary issue held that the loan granted to the petitioner did not fall within the definition of debt as defined in Sec. 2 (c) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was held to be not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Debt Relief Court, the petitioner, Bal Chand. filed a revision petition under sec. 17 of the Act, before the Dist. Judge, Kota, contending that the learned Debt Relief Court failed to exercise his jurisdiction, as the application under sec 6. of the Act was not maintainable. THE learned District Judge upheld the order passed by the Debt Relief Court and dismissed the revision petition by his order dated 24th August, 1976. Before this Court, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Debt Relief Court and that of the District Judge inter alia, on the grounds that the loan in dispute is a debt falling within the definition of the definition of the term 'debt' as given in the Act and that sec. 4 (k) of the Act, being ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution, the debt payable to the local authority, viz, Panchayat Samiti could be adjudged under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) MR. Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent, contends that the loan advanced by the Panchayat Samiti falls within the definition of expression "land revenue" by virtue of s. 82 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1959. He also submits that the same result will follow if Sec. 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is taken into consideration, He contends that as the loan advanced by the Panchayat Samiti comes within the category of land revenue. Consequently, it is excluded from the definition of "debt" as defined under the Act and, therefore, the application under sec. 6 of the Act is not maintainable.