The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of the benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme 2008 (for brevity, 'the Scheme of 2008). The terms of the Scheme are not produced by the petitioner. The respondent Bank however has produced Ext.R2(d), which indicates the terms of the Scheme. The specific contention raised by the petitioner is that, the petitioner was entitled to waiver as per Ext.R2(d) Scheme, which was not granted. The petitioner had approached the Grievance Redressal Mechanism also, which officer had declined the same by Ext.P2. 2. The petitioner asserts that the petitioner had applied for an agricultural loan to carry on agricultural activities in 2.55 acres of property, the document of which is mortgaged to the respondent Bank. The petitioner relies on Ext.P1 to buttress the said contention.
3. It is to be noticed that Ext.P1 is merely the Schedule of the application, which indicates that 2.55 acres of property was offered as security. The respondent Bank has produced the application for cash credit at Ext.R2(a), wherein, the petitioner had specifically applied for a crop loan for the purpose of cultivation of 10.05 acres of property ie., about 4.0678 hectares. It is specifically stated that the loan itself was availed in the name of the petitioner for carrying on agricultural activities in the property of the petitioner and his father; both of which were offered as mortgage.
4. The counter affidavit specifically contends that the loan availed was specifically for the purpose of cultivating coffee, pepper, arecanut, coconut, ginger etc. and the same was to be cultivated in 10.05 acres of land. The respondent specifically relies on clause 3.7 of R2(d) Scheme, which defines “other farmers”, as agriculturalists, carrying on cultivation in more than two hectares of land. It was in such circumstance, that as per the Scheme of 2008, the petitioner was given a relief of Rs.31,439/- as is applicable to “other farmers”. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason, why the petitioner should be extended any further relief in addition to what has been granted, as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme.
5. Considering the impecunious circumstances of the petitioner and the fact that the writ petition is pending from 2009, it is directed that the recovery, if not already concluded, shall be kept in abeyance on condition of the petitioner settling the entire loan amounts in ten equal monthly instalments. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the respondent Bank within two weeks of its receipt. The respondent-Bank shall quantify the dues as on 31.12.2014 and issue a statement of accounts, in accordance with which the instalments shall be paid. The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 15.01.2015 and thereafter; the due date of instalments falling on the 15th of each succeeding month. If default is committed in two consecutive instalments, then the recovery proceedings shall be revived and continued. On the satisfaction of the dues as per the statement, the Bank shall give a statement of the future interest from 31.12.2014 and the same shall be settled as the 11th instalment.
The writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A To Judge.