IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28881 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.D.MATHEW, PARAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KADUMENI, CHERUPUZHA, KAASARAGODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM (KAIPPANPLACKAL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY 2. SYNDICATE BANK, REP.BY THE CHAIRMAN, MANIPAL, KARNATAKA 3. BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, CHERUPUZHA BRANCH, CHERUPUZHA, KASARAGODE. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SC FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.28881 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P5 and he also seeks a declaration that he is a small farmer and that his entire loan under SKCC 58/06 is liable to be waived under Ext.P2 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. 2. From the statement filed by the Bank, it has come out that it is not the petitioner himself who has availed of the loan, but the petitioner and his son had made a common application and availed of a joint loan. The claim of the petitioner for categorizing himself as a small farmer has to be examined in the light of Ext.P2 scheme and the declarations made by the petitioner and his son in the loan application, which is Ext.R1(a). Going by the particulars given in the loan application, the land declared by the 2 petitioner and his son to be under cultivation is 5.4 acres. Ext.P2 defines small farmer as a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and upto 2 hectares (5 acres). 3. Admittedly, the extent of land cultivated by the petitioner and the other loanee being 5.4 acres, petitioner cannot fit into the definition of small farmer occurring in Clause 3.6 of Ext.P2 scheme. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended for the position that petitioner is a small farmer for the reason that the extent of land mortgaged by the loanees was 2.5 acres. In my view, the extent of land mortgaged is irrelevant and going by Clause 3.6 of Ext.P2, the extent of land under cultivation is what is relevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred me to the statement filed by the respondent Bank, in which it is stated that the petitioner is a small farmer. True, such a statement occurs in para 6 of the statement filed by the Bank. But then, having regard to the admitted factual position that 3 the petitioner had declared the extent of land under cultivation as 5.4 acres in the application made by him and in terms of Clause 3.6 of Ext.P2, they are outside the term of small farmer, I am not in a position to accept this plea either. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the loan availed of is a short term production loan as defined in clause 3.2 of Ext.P2 scheme and therefore the decision of the Bank in limiting the benefit of waver to Rs.1 lakh is erroneous. According to the learned counsel such upper limit applies only to working capital loan and not in the case of short term production loan. From the documents made available by the respondents, particularly the process note for agricultural advance, produced as document No.1 along with memos dated 8th January, 2008, it is seen that the loan availed of by the petitioner was for meeting the maintenance expenses of yielding plantation crops in 5.4 acres of land cultivated by them. If that be so, the argument that the loan availed was for developing plantation, cannot be accepted and 4 the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that it was to meet the working capital requirements of an existing plantation that the loan availed of was utilized has to be accepted. ' 6. If that be so, going by the terms of Ext.P2 scheme, the maximum entitlement is limited to Rs.1 lakh. This position is also seen clarified by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services by its letter dated 18th June, 2008, a copy of which has been made available to the counsel for the Bank. Therefore I find reason to interfere. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ 5