IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1755 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28881/2008 Dated 30/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- P.D.MATHEW, PARAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KADUMENI, CHERUPUZHA, KASARAGODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, 2. SYNDICATE BANK REP.BY THE CHAIRMAN, MANIPAL, KARNATAKA, 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, CHERUPUZHA BRANCH, CHERUPUZHA, KASARAOGDE DIST. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. R2 & R3 BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1755 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2009 in WP(C) No.28881 of 2008, the appellant/petitioner has approached this Court in the present appeal. 2. The appellant/petitioner has sought for quashing of Ext.P5, the communication received from the respondent Bank, not excepting him so far it went against the petitioner and also for a declaration that he is a small farmer and as such his entire liability is entitled to be waived under the Scheme Ext.P2. The main contention of the appellant/petitioner before the learned Single Judge and before this Court is that the petitioner is holding land along with his son, no doubt he is holding land about 5.4 acres, but as he has mortgaged an area of 2.5 acres which would be his share after division of the family, taking into WA No.1755/09 -:2:- consideration sub Clause 2 of Clause 3.7 of the Scheme, if the remaining extent is taken as a holding, he definitely falls under the category of small farmers. By looking into Ext.P2 scheme especially the definitions of “marginal farmers”, “small farmers” and “other farmers”, a reading along with the Explanation it is clear that in case of joint holdings like joint members of the family, the entire extent of land held by such family has to be taken into consideration. The benefit under Explanation (2) is only available to group of farmers who pool together their holdings and in such cases the largest holding in the pool should be taken as basis for the purpose of classification of farmers as either marginal farmers, small farmers or other farmers. Admittedly, this is not a case where the petitioner and his son have pooled together their land and on the other hand, admittedly they are joint holders of the land and as such, no bifurcation as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Sub Clause 2 of Clause 3.7 of the Scheme can be held in his favour. The learned Single Judge and the respondent have rightly taken this aspect into proper consideration and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for WA No.1755/09 -:3:- entitlement of waiver of entire liability under the category of small farmer. So far as the other benefit is concerned under Ext.P5, it is already given and as such Ext.P5 being in favour of the petitioner need not be quashed. The writ appeal stands dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb