1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 2,06,848/- on or before 25.03.2011 failing which the respondent no. 2 shall attach the property of the petitioner under the Land Revenue Code and also the order dated 07.02.2011 issued by the respondent no. 1 directing the petitioner to pay amount of RS. 2,66,106/- on or before 31.03.2011.
2. The facts of the case as per the present petition could be set out as under:
2.1 The petitioner had taken agricultural loans from the respondent no. 1 out of which two were taken by his father. The petitioner however paid up all the installments together with interest. Consequent upon introduction of the Agricultural Debts Waiver and Debts Relief Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), the petitioner approached the respondent no. 1 to grant appropriate benefits available thereunder. The respondent, however, directed the petitioner to pay RS. 2,43,349/-.
2.2 The petitioner therefore preferred Special Civil Application No. 12539 of 2008 before this Court for getting the benefits under the scheme which was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter preferred LPA No. 350/2009 against the said order of dismissal whereby this court vide order dated 31.03.2009 directed the respondent no. 1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 1 did not consider the representation of the petitioner.
2.3 Finally, the Special Recovery Officer issued final notice dated 01.02.2010 directing the petitioner to pay the amount of RS. 206848/- within 15 days failing which the property of the petitioner shall be seized. The said notice was replied to by the petitioner. Thereafter, after certain correspondences, the respondent no.1 issued notice dated 07.02.2011 to pay the amount of Rs. 2,66,106/- on or before 31.03.2011. The respondent no. 2 also issued attachment order dated 24.02.2011 for payment of RS. 2,06,848/- on or before 25.03.2011 failing which action shall be initiated under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.
3. Mr. Nakrani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are not giving any calculation in detail that the petitioner has made number of representations which are annexed with this petition. He submitted that the respondent no. 1 has issued the notice without considering the scheme and the petitioner is not liable to pay any of the amounts as he is a small farmer as per the scheme. He submitted that the action of the respondents in trying to attach the property of the petitioner is absolutely high handed.
4. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.
1 submitted that respondent no. 1 Society had granted four loans to the petitioner as well as his late father out of which two loans were repaid on time and two were not repaid within time. He submitted that the petitioner is falsely claiming 100% debt relief claiming himself to be a 'small and marginal farmer' which is not proper. He also submitted that considering the case of the petitioner under the category of 'other farmer', he was given the benefit of waiver of 25% loan amount or Rs. 20000/- whichever is higher and the petitioner was therefore called upon to pay the remaining 75% of the outstanding loan amount.
5. Mr. Oza, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2 has supported the case of the respondent authorities and submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as a small or marginal farmer. He has supported the say of the learned advocate for respondent no. 1 and has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the respondent no. 2.
6. Heard. This court has perused the materials placed on record including the impugned orders and notices and the reply filed by the respondent. In the year 2008, the Government of India had floated a Scheme known as 'Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 which applies to all agricultural debts which remained unpaid as on 28.02.2008. The scheme is available to small and marginal farmers as well as other farmers. The definition of marginal farmers provide for holding of the land upo to 1 hectare (2.5 acres) and for small farmers the area is holding of land of more than 1 hectare but less than 2 hectares which may include all the farmers irrespective of their holding in the category of other farmers. As per the Scheme, different treatment is to be given for disbursement and set off of the debts by extending relief through Central Government in respect of the marginal/small/other farmers.
6.1 The petitioner's holding of agricultural land is more than 2 hectares and therefore his case falls under the category of 'other farmers'. It is an admitted position that the petitioner as well as his father were advanced investment loan and short term loan. The petitioner is praying for debt waiver relying upon Explanation 3 of the Clause 3 of the Scheme. However, from the records it appears that the same is applicable to those farmers who had obtained the investment credit for allied activities which is not the case with the petitioner.
6.2 Moreover, out of four loans advanced to the petitioner and his father, two were repaid for which the petitioner was given the benefit of the Scheme. However he has not availed the benefit of the scheme in the other two loans by not paying the requisite amount in time. In the year 2007, the petitioner had challenged the recovery proceedings by way of filing Lavad Suit No. 207/07 in the court of Board of Nominees wherein a conditional stay had been granted directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50000/-. The petitioner did not deposit the same, and the suit was finally dismissed by the Board of Nominees.
7. Pursuant to the order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. The same was not challenged nor any attempt is made to file appropriate proceedings for non obeyance of the order of Division Bench by the petitioner. In view of this Court, it shall not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this petition pursuant to the order of the competent court because 106 certificate is issued after following due procedure and recovery officer has also followed due procedure under the Act and thereafter he has issued attachment order. Nothing is shown on record to prove any infirmity in the notices or the attachment order. Therefore having drawn a decree of the competent court which is not the subject matter of challenge in the present petition, it shall not be appropriate to entertain this petition.
8. In the premises aforesaid, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. No costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//