Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puran Chand And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 January, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 23254 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 10, 2012
Puran Chand and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh Khaira, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing auction notice (P-3) and proclamation of sale, dated 8.12.2010 (P-4 to P-6). A further prayer has been made for ad- interim order of staying the auction.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are farmers, secured loan from the Pathankot Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.-respondent No. 3. On 10.6.2008 a Scheme was devised by the Government of India granting relaxation to the Indian farmers by introducing a scheme for waiving off the loans and interest in respect of the farmers who CWP No. 23254 of 2010 (O&M) 2 have less than five acres of holding. A sum of `71,000 crores was spent to help the families of the farmers (P-1). However, on 8.12.2010, the respondent Bank issued notices in Form 'E' for proclamation under Section 19(1) of the Agriculture Development Bank Act, 1957 (for brevity, 'the 1957 Act'). Some amount appears to have been deposited by one of the petitioners, namely, Shri Thurru Ram-petitioner No. 5 on 10.11.2010.
3. In response to the notice of motion, respondent Bank has filed the reply and a separate but similar reply has been filed by respondent No. 1. The stand taken in the written statement is that the petitioners have secured non-farm sector loan and the details have been given in para 4 of the written statement. It has been pointed out that the Agricultural Debt Waiver Relief Scheme, 2008 (for brevity, 'the Scheme') [R-1] lays down the criteria and categories for beneficiaries of the scheme. The Scheme was applicable only for those 'direct agricultural loans', which fulfill the following three conditions:-
(a) Disbursed between 31.3.1997 to 31.3.2007;
(b) Overdue on 31.12.2007; and
(c) Remaining unpaid until 29.2.2008 was to be eligible for debt waiver/debt relief.
4. The Scheme contemplates two categories of farmers, namely, 'Agriculture Category' and 'Allied Activity Category'. The 'Agriculture Category' is divided into further two sub-categories viz.
(i) Direct Agriculture Loan'; and (ii) Other Farmers. The farmers who have taken loan up to five acres are considered under the 'Direct Agriculture Loan' category as small farmers. Under that category all the defaulter amount as on 31.12.2007, which CWP No. 23254 of 2010 (O&M) 3 remained unpaid till 29.2.2008, has been directly waived and adjusted in loan account of the loanee as relief. Under the 'Other Farmers' category those farmers who have more than five acres of land are regarded as big farmers. Under the aforesaid category 75% of the defaulter amount as on 31.12.2007 which has remained unpaid till 29.2.2008, was to be deposited by the loanee and then the balance 25% amount was to be adjusted in the loan account of the loanee as relief.
5. The other category known as 'Allied Activity Category', again has further been divided into two sub-categories viz. (i) Small Farmers, who have taken loan upto ` 50,000/- and all the defaulter amount as on 31.12.2007, which remained unpaid till 29.2.2008, has been directly adjusted in loan account of loanee as relief; and
(ii) Other Farmers, belonging to that category who have taken loan above ` 50,000/-. Under this category, 75% of the defaulter amount as on 31.12.2007, which remained unpaid till 29.2.2008, was to be deposited by the loanee and then the balance 25% amount was to be adjusted in the loan account of the loanee as relief by the bank.
6. The respondents have also claimed that the petitioners as well as the respondents are bound by the Scheme (R-1) and that the petitioners have misled this Court on facts. It has also been claimed in para 14 that the case of the petitioners is not covered by the Scheme and, therefore, proclamation of sale under Section 19(1) of the 1957 Act, has been issued. The petitioners are stated to have availed substantial amount of loan running into lacs of rupees.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and CWP No. 23254 of 2010 (O&M) 4 perusing the paper book with their able assistance we are of the considered view that the petitioners are not covered by the Scheme (R-1). It would be pertinent to extract the table showing the amount of loan advanced along with its purpose and the amount of outstanding loan, which is as under:-
"Petitioner Loan Loan Date of Purpose Loan Out-
No. Advanced Advance- standing
ment
1. Puran 1579 `4,50,000 7.12.2004 NFS* `7,33,796
Chand NFS*
2. Mukhtiar 1912 `2,00,000 15.7.2005 Dairy `33,91,175
Chand DF** Farming
3. Utam 180 `1,30,000 26.4.2005 C/Shed `2,11,202
Chand Cattle
Shed
4.Bishambar 1131 `1,00,000 8.3.2002 NFS* `1,37,504
Dass NFS*
5. Thuru 1668 `4,73,000 13.5.2002 NFS* `6,85,017
Ram NFS*
Note: *NFS - Non Farm Sector **F- Farm Sector"
8. In respect of all the five petitioners, the loan amount is more than `50,000/- and the petitioners have failed to point out the total area of agricultural land owned by them. Moreover, the loan has been advanced in respect of non-farming sector. The opening para of the Scheme would show that only those direct agricultural loans , which fulfil all the three conditions, namely, the loan should have been disbursed between 31.3.1997 to 31.3.2007. Secondly, it should be overdue on 31.12.2007 and thirdly it should have remained un-paid until 29.2.2008. Any person who fulfill the aforesaid three conditions was eligible for the Scheme. By way of illustration it has been pointed out that an instalment of investment credit for allied activity overdue on 31.12.2007 will not be eligible if CWP No. 23254 of 2010 (O&M) 5 it has been disbursed after 31.3.2007. In the present case, the loan has been advanced for non-farm sector. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit of the Scheme and in any case the period of operation of the Scheme has come to an end. The writ petition is wholly misconceived.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
January 10,
10, 2012 JUDGE
PKapoor