IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.58 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.3193 of 2004)

Suraj Singh        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.        ...Respondent(s)

With Civil Appeal No.63/2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No.12082/2004

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

The  appellants  filed  petitions  under  Section  5  of  the  Madhya  Pradesh

Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke

Bhumi  Hadapane  Sambhandhi  Kuchakron  Se  Paritran  Tatha  Mukti  Adhiniyam,

1976,  (for  short  ‘the  Adhiniyam’)  and  claimed  relief  under  Section  7  of  the

Adhiniyam by asserting  that  they belong to the category of  weaker section of  the

backward  caste;  that  they  borrowed  amount  from  Jai  Kumar  Jain  (husband  of

respondent  No.4  herein)  and executed sale  deed of  land  measuring 1.32 and  2.57

hectares respectively as security for return of the borrowed money; that they have

repaid the loan within one year but instead of canceling the sale deeds, Jai Kumar

Jain,  in  connivance  with  the  revenue  authorities,  got  the  name of  his  wife,  Smt.

Sampat Bai, mutated in the revenue records.   

....2/-

– 2 -

The Sub-Divisional Officer, before whom petitions were filed issued notice

to respondent No.4, heard the parties and passed order dated 22.6.1999 whereby he

declared the sale transactions as null and void under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam and

directed the concerned Patwari to delete the land which was subject matter of sale

deeds  from the land record of  respondent No.4 and include the same in  the  land

record of the petitioners (appellants herein).  Respondent No.4 challenged the order

of  the Sub Divisional  Officer by filing appeals  under Section 8 of  the Adhiniyam,

which were allowed by the Collector on the premise that the appellants do not belong

to weaker section.  The Collector observed that the Sub Divisional Officer did not

conduct  enquiry in accordance with Section 6 of  the Adhiniyam and held that he

could not have nullified the sale deeds on the basis of preliminary enquiry.  The writ

petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the Collector were dismissed by

the  learned  Single  Judge  who  confirmed  the  finding  of  the  Collector  that  the

provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable to the cases of the appellants herein.

Writ  appeals  preferred  by  the  appellants  were  dismissed  by  the  Division  Bench.

Hence, these appeals by special leave.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The

only question which requires consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants

fall  within  the ambit  of  the expression ‘holder  of  agricultural  land’ as  defined  in

Section 2(c) of the Adhiniyam, which reads as under:

“’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 or four hectares of irrigated 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.

....3/-

- 3 -

Explanation.-  One  hectare  of  irrigated  land  shall  be  equal  to  two hectares of unirrigated land and vice-versa.”     

From a bare perusal of the above reproduced definition, it becomes clear

that a person holding land not exceeding eight hectares (unirrigated) or four hectares

(irrigated) which is used for agricultural purposes, whether as a Bhumiswami or as a

occupancy tenant or a Government lessee, is covered by the definition of the ‘holder

of agricultural land’ in the weaker sections of the people.  In terms of Section 5, such

person  is  entitled  to  protection  and  relief  under  the  Adhiniyam,  which  has  been

enacted for protecting weaker sections of the people who are often compelled to seek

loan from private money lending agency to meet their obligations and are coerced to

transfer  their  agricultural  holdings  for  securing  repayment  of  loan.  The  revenue

records produced before the Court shows that the appellants in civil appeals arising

out of S.L.P. (C) No.3193 of 2004 and S.L.P.(C) No.12082 of 2004 were holding 1.32

and  2.57 hectares  of  land  respectively.   The  Sub  Divisional  Officer  examined the

records and concluded that  they are entitled to protection under  Section 5 of  the

Adhiniyam because the sale deeds executed by them in favour of Jai Kumar Jain fall

in  the  category of  prohibited  transactions  within  the meaning  of  Section  4 of  the

Adhiniyam.  While allowing the appeals filed by respondent No.4, the Collector held

that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable to the appellants herein but

he did not assign any reason for recording that finding.  The Collector also observed

that the sale  deeds  are  not vitiated by fraud but while doing so he

....4/-

- 4 -

completely ignored Sections 3 and 4 of the Adhiniyam which give overriding effect to

the provisions of the Adhiniyam and declare that all prohibited transactions of loan

as  defined  in  Section  2(f)  are  subject  to  the  protection  and  relief  under  the

Adhiniyam.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the order of the

Collector by relying upon the statement made by the appellants herein in which they

are said to have admitted that apart from doing agricultural operations, they were

having a shop, floor mill, a motorcycle, buffalos and other animals.  In the opinion of

the learned Single Judge, the appellants do not belong to the weaker section because

they were not wholly dependent on agriculture. The Division Bench simply reiterated

the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the letters patent appeals.   

In our view, the order of the Collector is vitiated by error of law apparent

on the face of the record because while allowing the appeals of respondent No.4, he

did not consider the relevant provisions  of the Adhiniyam and did not assign any

reason why provisions thereof are not applicable to the appellants.  The observations

of the Collector that the appellants herein were holding more land is ex facie contrary

to the revenue records. The learned Single Judge repeated the error committed by the

Collector and went a step further by observing that the appellants cannot be said to

belong to weaker section because they were having a shop,  floor mill,  motorcycle,

buffalos  and  other  animals.   Since,  the  definition  of  ‘holder  of  agricultural  land’

contained in Section 2(c) does not exclude a person having a floor mill  or a shop,

dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge and letters patent appeals

by the Division Bench only on the ground that the appellants possessed shop, floor

mill, etc. cannot be sustained.

....5/-

- 5 -

Accordingly,  the  appeals  are  allowed,  impugned  orders  passed  by  the

Collector and confirmed by the  High  Court  in  writ  petitions  as  well  as  in  letters

patent appeals are set aside and the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer are

restored.

......................J.

     [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, January 09, 2009.