THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU REVIEW S.A.M.P. No.1527 of 2009 in SECOND APPEAL No. 786 of 1997 ORDER: 1. This petition is filed to review the judgment dated 27.2.2009 in Second Appeal No.786 of 1997 passed by this Court, whereunder and whereby this Court dismissed the Second Appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1997 in Appeal Suit No.7 of 1991 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners contended that, the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act 45 of 1987”) is an independent Act and therefore it would cover the debts by the small farmers prior to the commencement of the Act. Hence, he prays to review the judgment of this Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and by the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Act 7 of 1977”), admittedly, review petitioner was not a small farmer, and hence, he prays to dismiss the review petition. 5. There cannot be any dispute that when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, then only the question of review can be entertained. On the premise that Act 45 of 1987 is not an independent Act, it was held by this Court that by the date of commencement of the Act 7 of 1977, one should be a small farmer within the meaning of Section 3(t) of the Act 7 of 1977. As seen from Act 45 of 1987, it is totally an independent Act and came into force on 1.1.1988. 6. By virtue of Section 4(1) of the Act 45 of 1987, all the provisions of the Act 7 of 1977 except Section 4, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the debts including interest, if any, which are deemed to be discharged under Section 3, as they apply in relation to the debts referred to in the said Act. There is absolutely no difference between these two Acts except to the extent of period of incurring the liability. Further, Section 3(i) and 3(j) are the only provisions under the Act 7 of 1977 which speak about the application of the Act from the commencement of the Act and the same have to be read under the Act 45 of 1987 also along with 3(t) which defends small farmer, and as such, to claim the benefit under the Act 45 of 1987, one must be small farmer as on 1.1.1988 which condition was also fulfilled by the review petitioners. It is observed by this Court that the review petitioners had fulfilled the other two conditions. Therefore, there is a patent error on the face of the record insofar as the application of Section 3 of the Act 45 of 1987 is concerned and there is sufficient reason for reviewing the judgment as there is absolutely no distinction between these two Acts except to the extent of incurring liability or borrowing debt is concerned. Further, unlike Act 2 of 1990, the Act 45 of 1987 is enacted by incorporating all the provisions of the Act 7 of 1977 except in the context of incurring liability or borrowing debts as abovesaid, and whereas Act 2 of 1990 only extends the time from 1.1.1988 to 31.5.1989 and nothing else. 7. Under Section 3(1) of the Act 45 of 1987, every debt borrowed or incurred during the period between 29.12.1976 and 31.05.1989 including interest, if any, owing to any creditor by a small farmer shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. It is not in dispute that the debt incurred by review petitioners was on 05.08.1983. It is not in dispute that by the date of commencement of the Act 45 of 1987, review petitioners were in possession of Ac.1.16 cents of dry and Ac.0.56 cents of wet land. The wet land, if converted into dry, the total extent of Ac.2.28 cents was in possession and cultivation of review petitioner. It is not in dispute that an extent of Ac.2.54 cents of dry land and Ac.1.72 cents of wet land, were sold in court auction on 04.08.1986. The said lands were purchased by the second defendant in the suit. It is not in dispute that after issuance of sale certificate, the second defendant in the suit obtained possession of the said land purchased by her. It is not the case of the respondents herein that in order to defeat his rights and to claim the benefits under the provisions of the Act 45 of 1987, the review petitioners sold the lands. It is also not in dispute that previously review petitioners executed a first mortgage in respect of his lands in favour of second defendant in the suit. The second defendant in the suit filed Original Suit No.51 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirupati and obtained a decree and later filed E.P. No.3 of 1986 and brought the suit properties therein for sale. In view of the fact that the review petitioners were in possession of Ac.2.28 cents of dry which is less than the prescribed limit of two hectors under Section 3(t) of the Act 7 of 1977, he is a small farmer and admittedly the debt incurred by the review petitioners was within the prescribed period as mentioned under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 45 of 1987. 8. Admittedly, by the date of commencement of the Act 45 of 1987, the first petitioner/1st defendant is a small farmer. As a matter of fact, the trial court as well as the first appellate court gave concurrent finding that the first petitioner/1st defendant was a small farmer by the date Act 45 of 1987 came into force. But, the first appellate court, observed that by the date of commencement of the Act 7 of 1977, one must be a small farmer to claim the benefits even under the Act 45 of 1987 and came to wrong conclusion. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is allowed, consequently, the Second Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of the first appellate court, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 28.01.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU REVIEW S.A.M.P. No.1527 of 2009 in SECOND APPEAL No. 786 of 1997 28.01.2010