® I‘N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA'IERE AT JABALPUR (M.P_._l WRIT pmxmow No.5 g”) a1 OF 2000. . PETxTION UNDER 233333235 226/227 OF pcwgmumor: OF INDIA. P ETIT IO NERS . . 1. GHANS WAM DEVA NEAN, Son of Bismw, aged 35 years, o.B.C. R/o yatan, District mm ‘ DURG. 2., SMT. Kz‘NTI DE‘VANGAN, wife of chaganl a1 Devargan, agemyears, O.B.C. Resident of Pa tan, Di st rict HIRG. Lal Kunwar Si ngh Sori, son m: B.s. sor'i, égé 3g yearss, ~>1 Regident of Fatan DiStriCt DURG . VE RSUS RE@ONDENJ3S .. 1. STATE OF MADHYA P‘RADE‘SH THROUGH Secretary, Department: of Reveme, / Vallabh Bhawan, BHOPAL. COLLEC'IC R DURG: ms trict mrg, M.P. 3. TAHsJLDAR PATAN, District Burg}, M9. 4. MANAGER, mna Bank , Branch patan, District mrg, M.9. 1. Egkimlars of__t_:_1_‘1g Eetitionexs. As given in the cause title above. 2. ggrticulars of the ReSpondenE. As given in the cause ti tle above. Oontcl. 2. XI-HC-22 Wm m ‘Wma‘iwma %a¢mm . 11.12.2601 $hri P,Pt5ahu, learned counsel‘for The pe‘rifioners. Shri P.$.Koshy, Iearned cou sel for- The respondent No.4 / Manager, Dena Bank. 5hri Rajeev Shrivasfava, I rned Panel Lawyer for fHe responden‘i‘ / $1'a1'e. Heard. The pefi‘rioner No.1 fook i of Rs.95,000/— in The year 1987, pe‘rifioner No.2 fook loan of s.95,000/— in The year 1995 and peTiTioner No.3 Took loan of R535, 00/- in The year 1996‘ AT The relevanT Time, The Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam‘1987 was in vog ‘ $ecTion 3 of The said ACT is as regards recovery of cerTain du s as arrears of land revenue. SecTion 3(3) includes “under a socially desirable scheme". IT is sub-miTTed on behalf ofl The respondenTs ThaT’The said scheme availed by 'The wriT peTiTio ers would clearly come wiThin ‘ The purview of socially desirable s heme. Obviously, in Terms of The aforesaid provisiona noTice wad issued by The Tahsildar To The wriT peTiTioners for recovery of The loans under Prime MinisTer Revenue ecovery CerTificarTe, (R.R.C.). Obviously, such noTices'were issuedlon failure of repaymenT of The Rojgar Yojna under ’\'4// u . ' WW mmmafm WW WW W®1€§R ’ €5eqi=vaqaimt loan in +ime. The main confen ion made before This Cour? ié fhd‘f a‘r fhe relevan‘r fime when no‘rices w r'e issued, The Tahsildar’ concerned had no such jurisdicfion To issue su no‘l'ices for recovery under The Ac‘r as R.R.CJ £nasmuch as +he said rime Minisfer Rojgar Vojna did nof come wifhin 'rhe purview o‘f’fhe afo said Adhiniyam 1987. I‘i’ may be sfafed Thai by an amendinenf effe Ted in 2000 vide no‘l'ifica'rion da‘i'ed ‘13j'h4 SepTember, 2000, The said P RY has been included wiThin The purview of The aforesaid Act If is m foliowsz- PRIME MINISTER ROJGAR VOJNA (PMRV) “L 'haT clearly This scheme was noT wiThin The ' before The amendmenT was effecTed in 2000. IT has been urged b‘ ‘ShrivasTai/a fha'r Though fhis amendmen‘f' such programme desirable scheme. Afier hearing ‘rhe sub! ' 1'ha1' since amendmen‘i' of The The scheme under which loan was given To 2000 as specifically menfionec Shri P.P.$ahu, submi‘rs 1 V purview of The aforesaid Aci \ The wriT peTiTioner;(/ @nxmy vihw noTices issued prior To The coming inTo ' force of The amendmenT car noT be said To have been validly issued. FacTs remaining The k nTioned in clause IV of The noTificaTion as Y Slm P-s-Koshy, as well as Shri Rajeeii ’ scheme has been clearly specified in The was oTherwise sTipulaTed as socially nissions of The parTies, I am of The view aforesaid Adhiniyam%ified in The year OW of The same, I am GRPRJ—FF5/3ll 1/2001 50,000. WWQHWET) Cerfified copy as per rules. /x ‘ Sdl- ( Chief Justice V 7 \ 1 XI—HC—22 2mm m ®$.03§§.. ""15“ $m$ 2000 mam WW mw Wmmaf‘aa \ WW$=ééTm i? emu mam View fha'r if will be fair- ?ha‘r fresh nofices are issued by The Tahsildar' and» The pe‘ri‘rioner‘s are given oppor‘l’uni'ly 1'0 say what ‘rhey wish 'ro say and acf ‘rhereaffér in Termsof fhe provisions of The aforesaid Ac‘r for- The purpose of recovery of Ioans under R.R.C. disposed With of. NW The above diiecTiong'ld MM‘L’X observo‘rion, vain/him, This W pefi‘rion is‘9 én m7 ,\\