~s~i sssieS- fSKSVfSW:- .^^•^^^^fe^^^'L.^^rC^-c't-vy^^-i^^^'^"^ •,-Af &• yft'Q^ ~ IN ;THS KIGH-'QaJKT OF'S^H^ PHAQSSH 11 IFNnftlltl 1111 »^tl.111 la MIWifl^HfWtHlill nrtlll IplKI II <ilfihiibiik,ritHa^^ui»,|»ihiH(^*i1 ^l * ^ a MO ' of' 1990 <WBAL?yR S^iS) SJy^:W^ I &! •fi-:, TITiOJvERS :- J- Sant- Charan son of ' Sewak Ram 2- Hori Lal son o£ Sev.'ak Ram . (Now AOjor) Gultivatoss of' Mouja jampali, Tafasi.l Sakti, Distt. Stlaspur. t-Versus-' ">"•• . •&- u S "3.-^ h4- i"i'^ ^SPGn'BSNTS. :- ^* •• 1- Collaetos, Bilaspus. 2- S.D.O.-cum-Debt !ielief Gourt Sakti, D.istriCT: ~ Silaspur. ? 3- Mst. Dhiya Ral widow of Chhotu, /1~ IIuIas.HaB son of Ci'uiotu, Guttiv'a'koz's o£ Kou.Ja JaiDpali, Tali. Safcf.i, 'Distt. Bilaspui. . -.E'STCETIQN .UND5R. ARTICLe 226/227 . CONSTIJUTIQN ^^v^v^^f^^wvt^iv^- U- INUlA. •UmlVN?UA^lVllini II »"l^u^«h(ptf^>tc|lpnrlBvt1<Kn3^vl It^-St.^SS: XI-HC-22 fsf ^l^ld^l, d'rf'K-riti, («iywy< -3Tl^T'T=f^ _.^.a^o V^ 200 ^•p •^ 3n^?T«BT fiaNisn^r •yW^^^ 3T1^?T^<tT^TC +Wl<-l<n-i U]'Drit'irte^rf3R3R ^;3rf^tff3n^?T :. Anil Kum.ar Paiidey, cjoiinsel tbr tlie petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel] None on behatf of resoond Law^-er for respoadent No.l & 2. [ent No.3 Ss 4. Bv this writ petition uildd ,f T->-...-1^ rticle 226/227 ofthe Coustitution .-I,-, ot inclia tiie perrtioiiers aave q|ucstioned Uie iegEU.ny, propnety aiifi correcto.ess of order dated 13. |L. 1987 passed by fh.e Sub Dwsional Divisional Officer has allowed- the i Oflicer, Ssxti wherebv &e Sul i application of respoiident No.^ CMiartisgarh Ssanaj Ke Kaiiajo^ Ka udhar Dene Waloa Ke Bhuici Tatha Mulcti Adhinivabl. 1976 ; h ' 'Lhe Adhmivam. 19761, set asii srs Dv res'ponueut f<<] .order dated 11.10,1989 passec &; 4 filed under Section 5 vargon ii Knsn: O' 01 inumi-unaratEou i Hadai^ne Saiubajldhi Kuchaliron Se 'renisj?.1 reiexTeci T.O '?is iC the sale deed executed in favour of ^.3 & 4 and ordered for restoration of possessioa of laxid. The ]jietitioners have also questioned the bv flie Additioaal Collector, Korba tliereby aiBi-ming the ord.sr pass^d by Sub Divisional Officer. On fi]ing of tliis writ p| respondents and notices' were 24.7.1990 but inspite of ser/ice the court. Per-usal of appeUate| tliat respondent No.3 &. 4 fajled iu. response to the court's notic| sent bv fhis Court to thein but -espondeat No.3 Su 4. Therefore, 'tition noticeg were issued to t'fae sei-ved on res-oondent No.3 & 4 on of notice they failed to appear before order dafed 11.10.1989 also shows to appear before the AppeUate Coiirt :. Special Post Card was a-iso fciothiag has been heard on fcehalf of "-i'T-ll-ET'i^T imsicuices arg'aments 01 XI-HC-22 S^'sinf^^f, SrflVTS, («lctl<l3< 3TI^T'7=W V^ 200 f^g 311^?I%T feFTT^sn^T gitiNigf^r sti^TSOTsgTflfsa' u leanied coiinse1 for tlie pet^tioaers aiici leanied P, respondent No. 1 & 2 were hestrd. Brief lacts leadiai girafeltfrT WRTt'ff fSi^T t^RZR: ^Slf^TSn^T i/-a^;Ter xoi" ro pling of ttiis wri't petition •ai~e that oa 21.3.1975 respondcrit. No.3 ^s 4 executed a registered saje deed m tavoiu' 01 Uie petitioiiers • iil r ;spect ofland beariag Hhasra No. 68/1 area 0.70-.. aci-e in considi{-ra'QOQ of Rs.600/-. Thereafter, fee petitioners lia^moved applicjation before tiie Telisildar for mutatioii of said te-ad ia theu- names. Tbe Tehsildar after issiuns notices to tlie vendors smd a proclaination petiuoners as no objectioii -w and proclaiiiation. However, moved an appEcation under in fhs vfflage mutated the naiaes of ^is tued in response to ttie said notice on 3.12.1983 respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Section 5 of fhe Adhiaivam, 1976 for se.tti]3g aside the sale deed aii^. restorafion of laad on tlie ground TJiat tl-ie land m question was i^ever fransfen-ed ia consideration, as respondent Nos. 3 8a 4 wer^ in need of lEoaey for treatment of husbaiid of respondeat No.3, jtlierefore, tliey took Rs.600/- from fhe fataer of the petitioners aa.ci favoiu" of the petitioaers mste<:id of sale vrifh fhe imderstandmg tiiat on repayiiient of loaa advan' ;ed tbe said laad will be retunied to rturaed to the petitioners to^ T-1-T'herefore, fiie appUcatioa was laiid in questioa was mortgaged ia Q ff^ respondent P-io.3 & 4. Furtli^r case of respondeiit Nos. 3 & 4 was 'chat tlie said money along ^ifh interest amomituig Rs.700/- was it fhey refused to reconvey tiie land. Ifiled. Leara.ed Sub Divisional (pfficer on receiving fhe said application issuect noti.ces to uie petitio]|iers, uiitiated tlie enquiiT ajicl a&er 1 . . conductiag thi, Cu^'ulij paBscu dic uapiignea orier (Aiu^^;^^y-45 . XI-HC-22 s^ ^tMtcfl, ^tWi, ^wwy. 3lT^?T'^ra>" tiwcn st>*<i««> W^ 200 St^tfVI OTwgte 3)1^1 gWIWS^ff Being aggrieved bv ttie order L& appesi before tiie Additional Co q>Wl<t4.1 MIHrilit'te-ifl <.Rlt<l<: ^a.l^trsiRw n SDO fhe petitioners preferred ari llector, Korba who ia tam vide order j dated 11,10.1989 (Aniiexure Pi5) rejected tlie appeal aad afBnaed ftie orderdated 13.1.1987 passd I have heard leamed coii4sel for tne petitioners Mr. Pazidey & .* ! Paiiel Lawyer on'behalf of respo4dent No.l & 2 Mr. P;vasi. Leamed counsel for the jm.stejice learaed S.D.0. ought satisn-ing hiuiself th.a.t tlie trai^ transaction ot IOEUI. Me nirUie Ipetitioners argued Uiat in the first Ito have coadiicted fae urelmiinarv eaquiry and oiight to have issiiejl the noticec to the parties only after Isaction la ciuesnon is & proiiibiteu ."ivea a concmsioii lenders. He also argued that tlil not con'ectly appreciated by tli! 'oQsmerea one L c:.^.l^ 11C irgueu tlisrt le&nj.ed S. D.0, ought to |tiat tae petrtioners are tae aioney evidence adduced bv 'the parties is Sub Divisional OSls IH-Ql KQjll TO CTC ?LG nr lOT'F'OVST. li'OU f£'viclsiice adducecl bv reSDOuclcut cl he considered to be an ^m.portant witness. In fhe last, he ai-gT.ied tliat findiag of the SDO ;is contraiT to the orovisioas of fhe ^ijlii-ining tlie order of SDO, On the other hand, leam.i lat periisal of order of SDO sho\ '?J. DO did not exs is accordiag to ttie Hionev was aclvari.ced t witaess to Mhiuiyam, 1976 and the appeljlate court also witiiout considei-mg the provisions of the Adhiaiyajm., 1976 passed the ffiegal order td Panel Laiy-v'er Sliri p'vasi .a.rgue.d )7s that the land in question was not »e¥-i [UxtgiAgbd m.5.,lieil.,QI ^o5^iijrflvgggg^g^0 •^sxy ....asiids®' -,,;.AS1!S~ SsiSiSSS!WS XI-HC-22 SSS'^PSvW, SrftWTS, Riiwy 34 3TI^?fq^7 tlTOtfll Silfictl W( 2M sn??rsET ^WSf^ aCTiwgfer sn^rsRtiWHifer ~ -^ Q ^ ^ responcieiit nos. y '3u an.cl petitioners even tlien tlie laad respondent Nos. 3 & 4, therefor qipiferawWRfr"^'tecS (RrcOT ^gi^-iTsn^T fnat m.onev was retumed to th.e was not reconveved ua lavour of ^, tiie provisions ofAdhraiyam, 1976 were attracted aad perfect leg^l orders have been by tlie SDO & lAppellate Court. He further argii^d ttiat tiie SDO afte.T evaluauiig the iCvidence adduced by ooth the p^irties reached to the concllision that jthere were liiaterial contradictio3|is in fh.e evidence of f&e petitioners, |fherefore, he rightly disbelieved jbelieved the. evideuce of responcl fhat the -oetitioaers we.re tors did not laiow aii^'tiim.g abou1 & fhe evideuce of the pentioners a-ad ent Nos. 3 & 4. He lurther sub'mits at ttie tiiae of fraiisaction aj.id thev ftie traasaction, therefore, their evidence was whoUv iiareliable. Havuig lieard lear&ed cou^isel for tlie pai'ti.es, I have perused jfhe inipugned orders and relevaa{ In order to s.ppi^ciate fhj ;ounsel for tlie parties it will be) records. areuinent.s advaaced learo.ed profitable to have a glaace on the tirovisioas offhe Adhiiiiyam., 197)5. T'he Adhiiiiyam was enacte.d with a purpose to better econoauc conjditioa ofholders of agriciilt'arai laad pi Ae weaker sections of fae. petji tericiiltural iQdebtedness bv nii t-esorted to iii m.aav a form bv txiendiag credit to theiu ad Plierefore, tllis Adliuiiyaia was ei^ b'ansactioa regardiiig agriciilturaJI £> l-"-£!;- jigriculturists. Section 2 (c) of tl' iple by providiag further relief from .Ilift'ing the laiid grabbuig desigas lenders of raonev while and after U m.atters connected tiierewitli. ^acted with a piirpose to nullift- the laads which are executed in favoiu' ?f tlie monev leadei-s ia Ueu df m.onev. advanced to. ttie weaker ie Adhiaiyam, 1976 envisages tliat r! XI-HC-22 33! -<ii'i)li'l'i<, OTTiu'itc, Rtciwy an^Tq^F •(picii a»*ii<» WS, 200 1^?% sn^r^r R.'ii'sb sncST a^TT^uf^T 3ii^?rsTmw(ift(f —.^ means a holder ofland usedfoi\ ^rafepfPTWRff^'te^ tteztT ^;3lf^ir3IR?T "holder of agricultural land' »t ihe weaker sections of the people purposes of AgricuHure not exceed'ng eight heciares of uninigated Idfid or four hect.ares of nngated land i ivithin the State'. Section 2 (cti ebvisages tliat: lender ofinoney means holder of agr'ailtural ?cri ihe ChhaUisgarh Money \3. person advandng foan to a ^d, whether regisiered under lenders Act. 1934 or nof' ! Sub-section (f) of Section 2 of t^ie Adhiniyajii defines the 'prohifcited ! traasaction of loEm Biean.s a trsbisaction in wllich a lender of nioiiev advEm.ces loaa to a holder of agi iilterest in lana ui aiiv lonn cii sectioa (l). Sectiou 4 prescribes to be subject to protection aiid liciiltural land agaiast securitv of his }:scribed ui clauses (i) to (iv) of s"b- for ail prohiDited traiisactions of loan t-elief luider tllis Act notsvithstaiidiai 1 aaytmng coatauied iii the Code|or Emy ofher enactinent for tlie tinie beiag ia force or any decree or o|rder, if any, of any court or autSlority be subject to prptection aiid reyef in accordaiice with the provisions •of tliis Act. Section 5 prescri]{>es fhe application to be filed by a , holder of agricultural laad. Se| I conducted by the Sub-Divis|onal OfHcer "in. respect of such prescribes that on receipt of an u'ansacnons. iection 6 (1) applicalion v.nder Section 5 of fh^f fit, to ascejiain whether the l transaction ofloan andon being ^ iransactwn, he shall, after reco^ coiiduct an eii.quiry into sudz t}\ •tion 6 envisages the enqiurt' to be Act the SDO is reqiiired to conduci-a p''einninani enqi.iinj as he inaij ;'^ the circuinstan.ces of the ca.se deein \ransaction of loan is a prohibiled satisfied ihat section •'! applies tosudi \ding his opinon therefor, proceec ;o ^pjzsac^on in the mamier hereiiwfter XI-HC-22 sst ^nqicCT, yw'y'i<i, Rowy 3n^?Tq?gr »nwiT»w<»> V^ 200 ^TSg 3n?n^ fN^sn^r aiqragfei ihe enquiTy the Sub-Dwisiona's ascert.ainirtg the t~ive nature of tr: *l<llri-ifl-i t)14r)T^''fecA<Ri-KK ^Sif^ffStl^T provideo' Sub-section 4 of Sec^ion 6 further envisages tiiat "during Qfficer shall, for the purpose of •ijinsacft'on ofloan, tty to co??ect asfar jas mai,' fce, infoi-malion laith respkcti.o thefonowingfaeis, namelyl- ! (ij 'l.he am.ouni ofpnndf^al money; 1 (iii the market vctlue qft^i.e land ai the tiine ofthe transaction; w aci of the ,| consideraiion for saff in t/ie context ofthen market value under clause (n); (ivj wheih.er ffie considt ta't.ion shown in ihe docwnent ivas paid in ivhole or irl p (V) (vij ainounl of pn wneii as 1. pari pnvateSy or before fhe Sub- whether possession ^ftheiand was actuaUy delmered to the Jefider ofmoney <^s per reci1.a!s in Ihe said docu'ment. if not when mid in ^>hat manner the lender of rnoney obtained possession ^fthe land; tuhat were the tennsipfthe actua! agree;'nent beiween the leiider of nioney ai inciuding ihe raie ofi^iterest; {vii) fhe extent qfurgencij (rni) paymeni, ifany, mad\ 16 ihe lender of mone^ (ix) whether the Jender of\ n0f: ',d the holder of agricuUural tand for fhe han and ihe availabiUty of oiher sou'rcjes to the Hpfder of agricu'ttiii-al oftand. to obta-in the sa'ine: ? by the holder of agriculturoJ of land io'u/drds 1.he 'ioan; money is. registered jnoney lender or |B 1» tli is XI-HC-22 3^3[ra^]q', STTRPTS, (»IMI<13< 3T1^'?TT5rg7 37 fF^ 200 w^?r?ir i'd.-li* -S^T OTN;gi?(T (!xi any other surt'oun. Divisional Ojjicer 41ofd<fl-l KWdTffte-fl <R|*<1< ^.nf^iTaiROT lina circtanstances which . the Sub- ^ dee-mfii to consider;' ma<u Tlierefore, iu order to attra);t tlie provisioas oftlus Act fie Sub- 1 |Divisional Officer is required tq condiict a prplimman- enquin- to ,'ascertain wbether tlie transacnoli ofloan.is prohibited ta-aiisaction of jloan aiid on satisfving and after ito coaduct aii enqiiuT. In order nolder of aeiiciutiu-al laad aiust yiectares ot. uiumgatea laiict or recordiiig his opruioa he is reqiiu-ed to ascertaia tiie applicabiiitv of tb.is K |Act aad prohibited n-aiisaction (^f loaii fhe fii-st requireinent is tliai ^iot possess tae laad exceeding eight Ifour hectares of irrieated laiid; tiie jsecond reqiureiaent is that fhe! Imust be a luoiiev lender aiid fhe oerson who has advaiiced monev Ithii'd reauireiueut is that iii order to Itransaction of loau or not tlie ascertain wlietlier flie partic^lar u'aitsactiou is a prohibited jlib-Divisional Officer is requii'ed to which a leiider of uionev advaiices ascertaia tliat tlie transaction ial E.oaa to a ho]der of agricultural lahd agaiast securitv of uis interest ia laad ia aizv form as ineationed ia Secnoii 2. Therefore, a person wUo lia.s advasicad tlie loaii aiust be a onev lender as lias beeii h.sld bi/- Division Bench ofM.P. High Court tn Gie niatter of }tAers reported iii 1 vithin ihe pujvieto of prohibited t\ \idvancsd by a lender of money\ 'yerson wM not make him. a lendef clauses (i) to (iv) a^' sub-sectton (f) of f. 38 tliat from. the def'nition of fhe efn 'prohibUed iransaction of lohn', it is clear thai. in order to coine •misaction of loan, fhe loan tnusi be A sfray transacfion of loan by a ofmoney'. lii tliis respect ifwe look iiato tiie evidence of respondent ^o.S, she has categorifa11y staTRrl in Xl-HC-22 7Sf ^ii*)ic)t|, t9Tfl(.i']<s, (q<ii«y OT^r0??^' gq; 200 sn^r^T iS^NTsn^r ^T9?^fef ^iold-in.) «it<dTfffo-<!)<RIWK ^sri^Tan^r lier exajit.mation-in-chief (Aniie^iire P-2) fhat 'Sewdk Ram sahukari nahin kwia. tha fhat lueans fhe ^afher of petinoners was not a nioiiey lender. SIie has further categorlcaUv stated ftiat siace her husband was sick and she was ia need oll froai tlie Deutioners' father at fhd ruoney, tlierefoi^, sbe took Rs.600/- tune ofexecution ofdeed. Now coiaiiig to tlie qu^stion whether before jiinpugned order tlie Sub-Divisio|aai Officer satisfied miaselfwith fhe i j req'iliicraents of siib-section (4) q{ Section 6 of fhe Act. Clauses (2) & 1 (3) of silb-section (4) of Section ^ prescribes fliat market value of the jland at the time of the traiisa4tioa & adequacy of tlie amount of Ipriiicipal inoney as considerati^n for sale in fhe context of rlieii [iiiarket vslue under clause (ii) ar^ to be ascertained by the SDO. But iiii fhis case ii" we look iuto fht irecorded ia liis fhidiag fhat aiarket value of tlie laiid ia aud iiapiigned order, the SDO has not ?s.600/- which was advaiiced to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 was mszi^icienl money or that was aot as per stion. This is one of tlie importaat tor to ascexlaui whefaer tlie particular trsjisaction is a prohfoited 'fa^m^ t 'traii.saction of loaii or not and iiacluded tliese cla.uses. Tlie Sil ascertahied wliether aioney adva^iced was as per inai-ket value oz~ not, !'!t ttns fi this fact lias not beeii enqu |i~egardmg other. clauses ofsub-se "etiinied bv resoondeat Nos. 3 5d that is wliv the Legislature has b-Divisional Officer ouglit to have red by tlie SDO before passiiig tlie [mipugned order. Apart froru tha^ SDO has aot recorded any fuidia& j'tion (4) of Sectiou 6 of the Act. Now coiuing to tlie quest^ou that whetlier the amount was 4 to tae petitioners or Sewak Raai. is an adzuitted positiou tliat ilo docuineiit has been produced_oi_ XI-HC-22 ss( •sspfKW, •sw'.Wf, faowy 3TT^Tq?^ J9 W^ 200 Sn^TSBT fe^NiSfl^T ailriqigf^T 3n^T?¥SRFtaf?CT aid to ha.ve been executed bv tbe! 'hl^Id'ih^ K|t|<-Tl'iftetA <.Rl«l< ^aif^iTsn^T petitioaers ia. favoiir of respondent Ftos. 3 & 4 about tlie retum of tlte ainount. In the appUcation filed itiider Section 5 of tlie Adhiniyam|, 1976 respondeat Nos. 3 & 4 hacl qientioned that they have retiu-r(ed Rs.700/-, whereas respondent No.3 iii her evideuce sfated. tliat ) piiiQcipal ainoiuit + Rs.400/- inti] fihe retuniecl Rs.1,000/- (Rs.600/- fcrest). Therefore, there is laaterial cbntradiction beto'een two, laoieop'er, it has coine on record, as per epideiice of i^spoB.deiit, tliat mpiiey was advanced to theia in pjresence of one Lald'iu'aia. aadlteniis were settled. lu tlie first i]|tstance, the SDO decided to e^amuie said LELkhiram as a court i.'.litaess but unfortiuiately, ui fhe fjrst instance said Lakhiram. did not i atipeai- aad wfaen Laktih-ara appeajred tlie SDO was not in Court aad ii^. tliat process that witaess was e^amiliation of that witaiess the SpO's fmdiag caiuiot be said to be le|gal> inerely on fhe evidence of re|spondent Nos. 3 & 4 wi&out aiv 'n'oboration it was not sate to not exaiiimed, T'herefore, without ^eMeve tlieir evideuce particulaiiy '^ien the a.pplicatioil for settmg aside tlie sale was filed after 12 years of tlie traiisactiou. The fatiier of •t(h.e petitioners aad petitioners has i 1 • d^nied fae retuni ofinoney, even fjie witness to tiie sale de'd uamely p.imchram has stated that iafac otpienvise, tlie t1- tH Ti» Rnlp dl, 5, 6& 7 frEu^ied under the Act envisages aboiit ascertaiuBient of fhe price of tiort from fee Tebsildar aild Pata laild ?jld about the transaction Tejhsildar, Patwari, Lakhirain couldl have been coUected but titat has ! ' ' . i _-. . :--•:-^-^==^ was a sale not a aiortgase. Even la&d but the SDO failed to get a .JTari concerned regarding vallie of Therefore, the finding ofthe SDO aot based on the reliable evidei^ce when independent evidence of <.. ! ^y: lll.-t :1 il;M !i;l& XI-HC-22 J^ •^WIi-l'si, ri-d'lti'l'i, (««-ll«3<. an^Tq^? 40 V^ 200 SWRT^T ty;iN;3n^?T »iriq?g^a' aot been coUected. The SDO rf on the gro-uad that the petitionj iii iny opiaion this cannot be| <*wl<-i<n.< uwcfl'ffte'^ tfaw.K ^sif^tTsn^r •eiected tfie evidence offiie petitioners TS & said Paaclirain are relatives, but a ground for rejecti.ag tlie evideace outrigh'tly iinless soiae ofher material is available on record which inakes tiie evidence of tlies^ persous unti'ustivorthy. Tlie SDO contraiy to tlie evidence on ilecord, recorded the fmding tliat the petitioners and their fafher arp dealmg iii jaoaey lenduig, whereas ttte.re was no such evidence dn record. Even responderit No.3 nas categoricaUy stated m her exaititiation-m-cliief tliat fhe fatlier of fb.e \' petitioners was not desjiug in juoney leiiding. Therefore, on accoiuat of the above iajEirmities in fhlI; order impiigned and fhe appeuati I order, 1 am of the opiiiion t^iat on the basis of flie record aiid ividence avauable on lecord th!I; provisions ofAdhiaiyam, 1976 were lot attracted, therefons, ordejrs passed by S. D.0, & Additioaal Collector caniiot be sustauied the Adliiaivemi, 1976 because [aiicl are eoiitrsuy to tlie provisions of Iru'stly tliere is no evidence fliat tiie fafher of tlie petitioners was tlife inoney lender; secondly fhcre is uo reliable evidence tliat the dociijment in question was execiited as a I mortgage deed and not a sale d|. whetlier it is a protiibited ti'ans^ ascertau'ied tlie fact about the utaTlcet value of tlie laiid, which caii be oiie of the factors for decidms the Act. ;ed ajid tliu'dly, ia order to ascertain .ction of loaii or not tlie SDO has not whether the transaction iii ciziestioa was pi-oliibited traiisactiou or ii^t. Evea ofherrt'ise, fhe Sub Divisonal Officer Iias not inade any compl(aiice ofsiib-section (1) ofSection 6 of ^F5?R3^7 ol<^ XI-HC-22 ss( •^MI^, dTiiyIi<i, Rtciiyy 3T1^Tq?W 41 VF^ 200 sn^TSCT fiRN;sn^T ailliq;^f^l In tfae resuit, 1 aia of and the same 'are' recorded qiraferi^TwRffffte^t <^re?K ^s^pTgc^n' tlie ouiaion that tbe imdm.es .of Sub Divisional pfficer Sa tlie App^Uate Court. are contraiy tQ tlie record I'iviUiQut satisfyuig tlie requirenient of vaiious provisioiis of Adhiaiyajm, 1976, as such are iacon-ect & Ulegal aitd aie. liable to be set aside. ailowed aad im.ougned orders s szicli, petition ol Vn.e petltioners is fcre hereDy set aside. Certi&ed copv as per nilfcs. ^^ _-- ^ __ _ ___^ 'W Sd/- L.C. Bhadoc ('^^f^t) yjy