‘ E IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. MCZ of 2001 ,. rya’ogx (Writ Petition under Attcles 226/227 of the Constltution of India.) PETITINE OR .Dileep Kurrey aged about 30 years s/o. latevBih‘aru Kurrey: cast Satnami, resident of village—Telikot ‘Tehsil—Khars ia. Distt .Raigarh Th ough — General Power of Attorney w Lekh Ram Kurrey aged about 35 years s/o late Biharu Kurrey, resident of Village—Telikot, Tehsll-«harstm D1stt.Ra1garh (C‘G) Collector, VR'aigarh 1 Distt. Raigarh 7 (C.G) Kunj Ram s/e.Anand Ram c ast s atfiami/ res ident vil 1 age-Tel ikot Tehs il—Khars 1a, Dist Raigahh _gm‘rE % aFcrmATTI s Gr A K H ‘ ‘ h ‘ ‘z THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ‘é’ ‘ o Revev P WL T PETITION UNDER ARTEELE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF FCC t.) ‘ of HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR __.gL_ Sin e Benc M Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No. 1062/2001 M Dilee Kurrey p Versus ‘ Collector, Raigar and another h sw- . > Pras'hant Kumar Mgshra Judge , ‘3 , 5 ‘ -7 Vi iv Post or 4/ 01 -20Il f 4 é} Sal/— L wDGE m 01—2011 _h: ORDER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition N0. 1062/2001 Shn' Vipin Panjabi, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Awadh Tripathi, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER 01012011) The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by Collector, Raigarh on 24m April 2001 ‘(Annexure P-l )_ T to hold that the application filed by respondent No.2, Kunj Ram under section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinalier referred to as ‘the Act’) as within limitation. (2) On the application of respondent No.2, the Sub Divisional Officer by its order dated 24/08/1 985 declared the transaction to be prohibited transaction of loan and directed payment of diEerence of the amount to the respondent No.2 by the lender of money i.e. father of the petitioner. An appeal Was preferred by Kunj Ram in which the r “wrr—**i * PETITIONER Dileep Kurrey Versus RESPONDENTS Collector, Raigarh and another App6arance: Collector set aside the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer to the extent it allowed for payment of difference of price money instead of allowing possession of the land to the claimant. The appellate order was challenged in the High Couxt in M.P. No.1807/1987. The High Court allowed Writ petition to the limited extent and while holding that the subject transaction would be covered as a prohibited transaction of loan within the definition of the term defined under the Act, however the matter was remanded back to the Collector to decide the question as to whether the application under section 5 of the Act preferred by respondent No.2 Kunj Ram was within time or not. It was observed that if the application was within time, then the impugned order passed by the Collector shall stand and if the application was not within time, then same has to be rejected. (3) The impugned order has been passed by the Collector after remand. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Collector wrongly treated the application to be within limitation when admittedly the application was filed on 30m July 1984 whereas it should have been preferred by 31“ January 1984. Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that since the subject transaction was found to be prohibited transaction, the leamed Collector has rightly entertained the application and that no interference in this writ petition is called for. (4) Section 5 of the Adhiniyam provides that a holder of V agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting A\\ 1 @ 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. (5) Rule 3 ofthe Chhattisgarh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi—Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 herein referred to the rules provides that application under section 5 shall be made in form-1 to the Sub Divisional Officer on or before 31$ January 1984. (6) The Act 1976 has been enacted with the following object. “An Act to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the' weaker sections of the people by providing further relief fiom agricultural indebteaness by nullifjiing the landgrabbing designs resorted to in mmy ajbrm by lenders of money while and afier extending credit to them a and matters connected therewith. Whereas a holder of ag1icultural land in the weaker sections of the people is quite often compelled to seek loan horn private money lending agencies to meet his various obligations ofurgent nature: And whereas such private agencies seldom if ever advance loan to him without security of land, his only wherewithal: And whereas due to ignorance of niceties of law or urgency offmancial need or both, hefalls an easy prey to them scarcely realising the legal consequences arising out of the i documents which he executes or which they got executedfi'om i him accordingly by way ofsecurityfor the loan: 5x And where it is neceSsary to relie the holders of agricultural land in the wear sections of the people ham ch exploitation by nullwing uch past transctions of loan su s a as also to put a stop to such transactions. " (7) The matter arising out from the proceeding under the Adhiniyam are ts to be examined and ajudicated keeping in View hu d the object of the Act. The respondent No.2 Kunj Ram moved the application on 31$ July, 1984 on submission inter-aha that he had infact morgaged the lan and was working as gricultural t d a labour/Kamiya wit he father of the petitioner for repayment of loan h t and that the possession of the land remained with him. He cold not work as Kamiya as he fell ill, hower father of the petitioner sought repayment of loan. In the meanwhile, even though the pssession remained with him, petitioner’s father executed sale deed in the name of the petitioner inspite of fact that the earlier sale deed executed in a th ame of the petitioner’s father was infact a loan transaction. It was also stated that th price of the land was about Rs. 7000/- on the ate of trsactio whereas the sale deed aed 17/02/1962 has been d ann dt executed for Rs.500/—. It is also mentioned i the application and not denied in the reply filed by the petitioner’s father that after the subject transaction dated 17/02/1962 the respondent no. 2 has become landless. (8) It is to seen that Rule 3 of Niyam 197 or section 5 of the be 8 “k Adhiniyam do not state that the application cannot be filed aher 31“ January, 1984. In the matter of Jahar Singh and another Vs. ve ke u ev o e n e n Collectm, Sluvpurl Distinct and others reported m AIR 1988 M P 311 1t has been held that m v1ew of the provmons contamed m secnon 12, 15 and 16 of the Adhiniyam, the intention of the legislature becomes quite deer that the Act is enacted as a pennanent measure. Neither section 5 ofthe Adhiniyam nor Rule 3 ofthe Niyam make any provision that application filed after 319‘ January, 1984 I shall not be considered. Thus, keeping in View the object of the Act, an application filed for redressal of grievance in relation to a prohibited transaction of loan can be preferred even after 31$ January, 1984 in view of the law laid down by M.P. High Court in Jahar Singh and another Vs. Collector, Shivpuri District and others (supra) to the eEect that the Adhiniyam is not one time measure but is a permanent measure. (9) The collector has not committed any illegality 1n holding that the application filed by respondent No 2 was entertamable as it was Within time for seeking relief to quash a prohibited transaction of loan. (10) The instant petition is thus dismissed. Sdl— Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra‘