http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1669 of 2002

PETITIONER: Baboolal Sharda & Anr

RESPONDENT: Smt. Savitribai & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/2008

BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1669 OF 2002

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single  Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench dismissing the  writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 227 of the Constitution  of India, 1950 (in short the ’Constitution’).  The appellants had  challenged the appellate order passed by the Collector in exercise of  appellate powers conferred by the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor  Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran  Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 ( in short the ’1976 Adhiniyam’).  The  original order was passed by the SDO on 20.11.1990.  The complaint  was filed by respondent No. 1 stating that under Section 5 of the  Adhiniyam, the land purchased by the appellants needs to be restored to  her as transfer to appellants was in violation of the stipulations contained  in the Adhiniyam.  It was alleged that Ram Prasad Sharda, father of the  appellant No. 1 had grabbed the land and after his death the land was in  possession of his successor-the appellant No.1. The appellants took the  stand that the purchases in question were in court auctions and  therefore the Adhiniyam has no application.  The SDO did not find any  substance in it.  According to him, Section 15 of the Adhiniyam clearly  applied to the facts of the case.  It was also held that Section 6 is also  relevant.  The SDO did not accept the stand that the purchase being  under court auctions, the Adhiniyam had no application holding that  under the definition of "lender of money" and "prohibited transaction of  loan" the appellants were required to restore the possession of the land  to the applicant-respondent No.1.  Appeal filed before the Collector as  noted above did not bring any relief.   

2.      Before the High Court the stands taken before the SDO and the  Collector were reiterated. But the High Court had abruptly concluded  that the appellate order clearly established that the Act was applicable.   It did not examine the various points raised.   

3.      It may be noted at this juncture that there was a period of limitation  fixed for filing the claim after enactment of the Adhiniyam.  Appellants’  specific stand was that the application was filed much beyond the  prescribed time.  The High Court merely noted that the time for filing the  claims was extended.  It did not record any positive finding that the  application was filed within the extended time.         Section 2 of the Adhiniyam so far as relevant reads as follows:         "2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

requires ;       xx       xx                 xx

(c ) "holder of agricultural land" in the weaker sections of the  people means a holder of land used for purposes of Agriculture  not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land within the State  whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a  Government lessee either in any one or all of the capacities  together within the meaning of the Code. Explanation.- One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two  hectares of unirrigated land and vice versa. (d)     "lender of money" means a person advancing loan to a  holder of agricultural land, whether registered under the Madhya  Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934 (No. 13 of 1934) or not;

(f)     "prohibited transaction of loan" means a transaction in which  a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land  against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of  advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of  the loan in any of the following modes, namely; (i)     agreement to sell land with or without delivery of possession; (ii)    outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession  accompanied by separate agreement to re-sell it. (iii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with  a distinct oral understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon  if the loan is re-paid; (iv) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with  a condition incorporated in the sale deed to re-sell it on re- payment of the Loan; (v) transaction in any modes other than those specified in clauses  (i) to (iv) affecting interest in land including a fraudulent transaction  designed to defeat the provisions of any law regulating money  lending to defeat the provisions of any law regulating money  lending or interest, for the time being in force, and includes all  those transactions in which a lender of money has, after the  appointed day but on or before the date of publication of this Act in  the Gazette, obtained possession of land of the holder of  agricultural land through court or, by force or otherwise or obtained  a decree for such possession towards satisfaction of loan;"                                                                         

Section 6 of the Adhiniyam reads as follows: "(1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion in any  transaction of loan and shall on receipt of an application under  Section 5 in the transaction of loan referred to therein, make  preliminary enquiry as he may in the circumstances of the case  deem fit, to ascertain whether the transaction of loan is a  prohibited transaction of loan and notice in From II to furnish  information in the form enclosed with the notice in respect of the  land within such time, not exceeding 1 days as may be specified in  the notice.  as per sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of this section which are  reproduced below: (2) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall by a notice served on the  parties to the prohibited transaction of loan call upon them to place all  relevant facts and documents before him at such place, on such date  and at such time as may be specified in the notice. ( 3) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall at the place and on the date and  time specified in the notice, afford an opportunity to the parties of  being heard in person and may, if necessary, examine all of the  parties interested in land to elucidate information relevant to the  transaction of loan. (4) During the enquiry the sub-divisional Officer shall, for thee  purpose of ascertaining the true nature of transaction’ of loan, try to  collect, as far as, may be, information with respect to the following

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

facts, namely:

(i) the amount of principal money;         (ii)    the market value of the land at the time of transaction; (iii) adequacy of the amount of principal money as consideration for  sale in the context of the market value under clause (ii); (iv)    whether the consideration shown in the document was paid  whole or in part privately or before the Sub-Registrar;  (v) whether possession of the land was actually delivered to the  lender of money as per recitals in the said document. If not, when and  in what manner the lender of money obtained possessed of the land; (vi) What were the terms of the actual agreement between the lender  of money and the holder of agricultural and including the rate of  interest; (vii) the extent of urgency for the loan and availability of other  sources to the holder of agricultural land to obtain the same; (viii) payment, if any, made by the holder of agricultural land to the  lender of money towards the loan; (ix)   whether the lender of money is registered money lender or not; (x)     any other surrounding circumstances which the Sub-Divisional  Officer may deem fit to consider."

Section 15 of the Adhiniyam reads as follows:         "15. Transfer of land which is subject matter of prohibited  transaction of loan to be null and void \026Notwithstanding anything  contained in any law for the time being in force where a lender of  money transfers any land, which may be a subject matter of a  prohibited transaction of loan, by way of sale, gift, exchange,  lease or otherwise, such transfer shall be deemed to have been  made to defeat to provisions of this Act and be null and void."

Section 5 deals with the application for protection and seeking  relief under the Act and the same reads as follows:

"5.  Application for protection and seeking relief under this Act \026 A  holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan  subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter may  apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer within such time; and in such  form and manner as may be prescribed for protection and relief  under this Act."

4.      A bare reading of the various provisions makes the position clear  that a holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan  subsisting on the appointing date or entered into thereafter can apply to  the SDO in the prescribed form and manner for protection and relief  under the Statute.  Undisputedly the purchases made by the appellants  were at court auctions.  There was no material whatsoever placed  before the authorities to show that the lands in question had any relation  to any transaction of loan.   On the contrary the court auctions were for  non-payment of revenue in respect of the lands.  5.      Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently submitted  that the Adhiniyam specifically referred to "Kuchakron" that means  manipulation and ill-design.  There was no material before the SDO or  the Collector or the High Court to show that the appellants had any role  to play in the court auction or that they were responsible for non- payment of revenue for which court auctions were held.  6.      Above being the position, the Adhiniyam had clearly no application  to the facts of the case and therefore the impugned orders passed by  the SDO, the Collector and the High Court cannot be maintained and  are set aside. The claim made by respondent No.1 deserves to be  dismissed. 7.      The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.