IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1884 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. G.C.MATHAI , S/O. CHACKO, GANAPATHIPLAKKAL, MEVIDA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. MARY MATHAI, W/O. MATHAI GANAPATHIPLAKKAL, MEVIDA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOSEPH SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, POLACHIRAKKAL CHAMBERS KOTTAYAM P.O. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE ,KOZHUVINAL BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL BANK OF AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI. K.S. DILIP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.1884 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 to the extent where the benefit of Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008 has been given to the petitioners categorizing them as an “other farmer” and restricting the benefit to 25%. 2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioners had availed of a loan of Rs.1,17,000/- from the 2nd respondent. The loan held by the petitioners is in the joint name both the petitioners and the total extent is in excess of 2 hectors. According to the petitioners they are entitled to be classified as “small farmer” and on that basis they are entitled to full waiver. 3. According to the standing counsel for the Bank, the case of the petitioners will come under explanation No.1 to clause (3) of the Scheme which reads as under. WP(c).No.1884/09 2 “The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder(in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer(as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession.” 4. It is stated that first petitioner is a joint holder of land along with the 2nd petitioner and the total extent of land owned by them is in excess of 2 hectors. It is stated that, while reckoning the eligibility, the the total extent has to be taken as one unit and on that basis, the benefit eligible s for waiver of 25%. 5. I am not in a position to accept this contention. A reading of Explanation No.1 shows that if the person is a joint WP(c).No.1884/09 3 holder, while reckoning the land for determining the eligibility for the benefit of the scheme, the extent held by the person as a joint holder alone can be reckoned. The contrary interpretation as canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents leads to a situation where if a person owns 6 acres of land along with another and if that person applies for the benefit, the total of 6 acres will be reckoned as the applicant's land and it is on that basis the eligibility will be reckoned. This cannot be the correct interpretation. In my view, in a joint holding of the property, the joint owner's right in the joint holding alone can be reckoned. On that basis, the case of the petitioners has to be reconsidered. Accordingly quashing Ext.P3 I direct the Bank to reconsider the case of the petitioners for the benefit of the scheme referred to above and pass fresh orders. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.1884/09 4