STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. BHUKAN SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 21 -03 -2013 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner bank against the order of the District Forum dated 21 -03 -2012 was dismissed. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had taken an agricultural loan of Rs.1,00,000/ - from the petitioner bank which the Central Government decided to waive, under its Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. According to the complainant though he did apply for the waiver of the loan under the aforesaid scheme of the Government of India, his request was declined on the ground that he had not paid the requisite processing fee. The complainant had also claimed that out of total 5.3 acre of land owned by him he had constructed a house on land measuring 0.5 hectare, as a result he was left with agricultural land measuring 4.07 acres.

(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that since at the time of taking the loan the complainant had mortgaged agricultural land measuring 2.145 hectare, he was not eligible for waiver of the loan. It was also stated in the reply that in fact he had constructed only one room on the aforesaid land for the purpose of overseeing the crop and the entire land was being used for agricultural purpose. It was also stated in the reply that the complainant had already taken relief to the extent of Rs.24,294/ - on 30 -06 -2009 and therefore the complaint was not maintainable.

(3.) THE District Forum noted that in the revenue record 1.25 dismal out of 5.3 dismal land was registered as residential and, therefore, the agricultural land owned by the complainant measured 4 acre and 7 dismal since 1994. That being less than 5 acre the complainant was held eligible for waiver under the 2008 scheme of the Government of India. The District Forum directed the petitioner to waive of the agriculture loan and refund the amount of RS.72,880/ - which the complainant had deposited along with interest on that amount. A sum of Rs.5,000/ - was awarded to him as compensation besides Rs.2,000/ - as cost of litigation.