IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 372 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.36483/2008 Dated 14/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- C.M.MOHAMMED, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MAIDEEN, CHEERANAMKUDI HOUSE, IRAPURAM VILLAGE, IRAPURAM KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., BRANCH KEEZHILLAM, MANNUR, P.O. KEEZHILLAM, 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. 3. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY R2 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 372 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this, the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Challenging the rejection of the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a direction to the respondents to make him available the benefit of total waiver of his liability to the first respondent bank, the present appeal is filed. 2. The only question for consideration before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court is that whether the appellant is a small farmer or not. As per the definition in Ext.P2 scheme, small farmer has been defined as farmer cultivating agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares. Admittedly and undisputedly, all the records including the application filed by the appellant at the time of securing the loan show that the extent of land under lease to WA No. 372/09 -:2:- him was 3.608 hectors. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that by looking into the explanation it can be inferred that, it is not the extent of land owned or leased but, the cultivated land which is required to be considered. We do not find any material to show that the appellant was cultivating only an area lessor than what he has shown in his application. On the other hand, the affidavit of the landlord shows that the entire extent of 3.608 hectors was leased to the appellant for cultivation. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Ext.P6, the certificate issued by the Village Officer, to show that the extent of cultivation under the appellant is less. But when the date of the certificate is noticed, it is of the year 2008. That does not indicate in any way that at the time of obtaining loan, i.e., in the year 2002, the area under cultivation was between 1 and 2 hectors so as to claim the benefit of the Scheme under the definition of small farmer. In the absence of any such material the learned Single Judge was justified WA No. 372/09 -:3:- in rejecting the writ petition. It is also to be noted that even the Bank has given some concession by waiver of interest which would meet the ends of justice. 3. It is stated that in view of the pendency of the writ petition and writ appeal, the appellant has not made payments. Looking into the scheme(Provision 7.3), the appellant is required to give an undertaking to pay the first instalment by 30.04.09, second instalment by 31.05.09 and the last instalment by 30.06.09 as per the Scheme. With the above observation this writ appeal is dismissed. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge. ttb WA No. 372/09 -:4:-