IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 2046 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32739/2008 Dated 13/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC. : ------------------------------------- JOSE K.VACHALUKKAL, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, AGED 64 YEARS, VACHALUKKAL HOUSE, V.R.PURAM, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.T.B.HOOD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC.: -------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, NABAD. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SBT ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, SBT REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SBT CHALAKUDY. 6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA. R1 BY SRI.T.P. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASCG THOMAS J ANAKKALLUNKAL, CGC R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, SBT. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.A No.2046 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the rejection of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32739 of 2008, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The appellant/petitioner had availed a loan from the State Bank of Travancore and later defaulted in repayment. However, the Bank allowed the appellant to invoke the benefits under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 as per Ext.P1 considering his claim and noting the fact that the total extent of land in possession mentioned by the appellant is 9 acres and therefore he is liable to be treated as 'other farmer' and not 'small farmer' within the meaning of the Scheme. Aggrieved by the same, he approached this Court, inter alia, contending that the conclusion arrived at by the Bank that he is cultivating 9 acres is incorrect. According to him, in the application submitted for availing the loan W.A.No.2046 of 2009. - 2 - he had specifically mentioned that he is cultivating only 5 acres and as such he falls under the category of 'small farmer' and entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. However, before the learned Single Judge it was brought to the notice by way of reply affidavit, that apart from this 9 acres of land taken on lease by the appellant, he also owns 2 acres and 11 cents of cultivable land and as such the limit to bring him within the definition of 'small farmer' exceeds. The learned Single Judge also has taken into consideration the undisputed fact that the appellant appears to be an affluent person as he has got business in commercial interest and in this regard he himself has admitted that he has invested more than Rupees one crore in a shopping complex in the heart of Chalakudy town. As such the learned Single Jude concluded that keeping in view the object of the Scheme which is meant for poor farmers, the conclusion of the Bank that he is not entitled for the relief under the category of 'small farmer' is just and proper and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same the present writ appeal is filed. W.A.No.2046 of 2009. - 3 - 3. Sri.P.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the calculation of extent of land made either by the Bank or by the learned Single Judge is incorrect. Drawing our attention to the Scheme Ext.P1 and especially the definition of 'small farmer' and 'other farmer' at clauses 3.6 and 3.7, it is contended that a farmer who is actually cultivating 5 acres or less extent of land falls under the category of 'small farmer'. It is contended that in the present case, the appellant is cultivating 5 acres only, though he has taken on lease 9 acres of land. Adding to this, it is contended that the explanation to the clause indicates that there can be only two categories of farmers, either the owner-farmer or tenant-farmer and these two categories cannot be mixed together to form additional holding for the purpose of availability of the provision under the Scheme. 4. So far as the explanation of addition is concerned, we are afraid the same cannot be accepted. There cannot be only two categories, namely owner-farmer and tenant farmer. There W.A.No.2046 of 2009. - 4 - can also be a third category like owner-cum-farmer as is the admitted position in the case of the appellant. Taking into consideration the above fact and even for a moment accepting the contention of the appellant that he is cultivating 5 acres of land and also owns 84 cents of agricultural land, the land under cultivation of the appellant would be more than 5 acres and as such even accepting the case of the appellant, his holding for the purpose of definition under the Scheme is more than 5 acres and he cannot fall under the category of 'small farmer' and he can be only treated as 'other farmer'. As such the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge appears to be just and proper irrespective of the consideration and finding as to the affluency of the appellant. Hence we find no merit in the writ appeal as the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the appellant is not a 'small farmer' and he was under the category of 'other farmer' is just and proper. 5. Hence we dismiss the writ appeal. However, it is submitted that if the appellant falls under the category of 'other W.A.No.2046 of 2009. - 5 - farmer', he is entitled to the One Time Settlement relief under clause 7.3 of the Scheme. We make it clear that though the cut off date for availing the benefit of the Scheme of One Time Settlement by three instalments is over, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Bank shall extend this benefit to the appellant by giving him three instalments starting from 1st October, 2009. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns/vku.