Karnataka High Court
Sri M Sanjeeva Kunder vs Canara Bank on 18 August, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAELQRE
DATED THIS THE 18" DAV OF AUC-$U5T_'...2_'C_:1VC)'T: '_.u "'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JusT:c_E AJET1 J'.E5TUNJALT X: E 7
WRIT PETITION NOs.860 7'=& 91%..-'9176;-72'C'1'O#(.$_{L_A,;%REST:V: A
BETWEEN:
M.Sanjeeva Kunder
S/0.Kariya Kunder
Aged 49 years- . '
Agriculturist,
R/at.Ganja_}é,, Ngagodi. Vitiage '
Post Nittc-'r-Sf'/'-7 ,
Hosanagara 'Faigk _ -- ~ _
Shim0'g'a" Digit. .. PETITIONER
(By Svr'iBl QR:.aEaA§iCW}dTéV;'A¢v.J
AND: V' % A S n
C_af:.ara_i'Bank _____
.Br'anC'hfOffige at Nittur
' .V.H'osan_agaTaTaluk
3§1ir ho.g~a DiSt.r-E='ct
" Pifi-577 4152?
By itsV___'Man--éger .. RESPONDENT
E (By KS1-.i-- :V.Haridas Bhat, Adv.,) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent bank to give the benefit of the c»-Central Government under Debt Relief Scheme in fayour-jorf"the petitioner and after deducting the benefit the__baia«n_ce_to-___be demand the amount from the petitioner which .is._liiablie._to' be paid under the Scheme, etc. ~ '~ These writ petitions coming~,cSn7.for "'-prei:'i-:rzi'r;;az'y hearing in B-Group, this day«._t"'n_e Court"».ma'c:e~..,MttseV fo££owing:- V' 1 _ > t,,,_4_9m_arol:ei'a[ One Smt.Kama'la-Was. the property in Sy.Nos.J,'7é4Ae/'LE4, Nagodi Village, Hosanagiiar "dispute that she had ' i,i:is.l3,oo,o0o/- from the said borrower did not dis;cha.rge theploanv; Hence, a suggestion came from 'the she should sell the properties and pay d'u'Ve_s_,'~:f"?he petitioner agreed to purchase the for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-- and the ipetitiolner had mobilized a sum of Rs.8,00,000/~ and Alganfl additional amount of Rs.8,00,000/-- has required 19/ for purchase of properties. It appears, the Manager of the bank suggested that the bank would request for sanction of purchase of the properties and~~o.ut amount, the amount due adjusted. The said propo.js';a~!.,wa.s and loan amount of 00 sanctioned on 30.3.2001.
2. it by :..'{f'ErV._i?t'udragowda, learned counse.l--...foi=._v"th'e:;,_.petiltiioneri-----that pursuant to the said transa_ct'ion', has already been executed in favour oi"~.th'e ,petiAti,ori~e0'r. It appears, the petitioner is axsurn"*of'Rs.21,00,000/---. Since the said not paid, respondent~bank initiated before the Bebt Recovery Tribunal to ggrealiieithe amount in O.A.No.331/2009. On contest, "'~,_'the.A*'Asaid application is accepted and the Tribunal has 23/ permitted the bank to recover the amount. But however, has observed that if the petitioner _is.Ve-nt'i~tvied for Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt 2008, the said benefit must bee»x.t.e'nd.ed'vtoT.--h"in*i..'.'_j;.
3. The grievance.»'Qf.
notwithstanding the communiication to the respondent--bani<;V:"the«Vv come forward to consider the_c!a__im waiver of the said loan. ' l notice issued, respondent-
bank enters' and files its statement of obj.e'cti.onsi objections they would contend that the p_e'titio"n--er is not entitled for the benefit of the said 1"~S'chen?1e7gno't.w.ithstanding the fact that he might be classgifiedhvas 'Other Farmer'. They would contend that AAthle.._said waiver is applicable to certain categories Alwhiich are to be found in the said Scheme of 2008. 19/ The petitioner's loan was for the purpose of purchase of property, which does not attract the defignitmin-..vv of 'Investment Loan' defined in Clause 3.3 of of2008. _gsg
5. I have perused Lnnon Budget an the yea} 2o0a#o§; Hes Cenbal Government came' which is called 'Agricuitvurali.-"ijfij; Debt Relief Scheme,€. 'V has to be who are 'small farmers' and 'lother of 'small farmer' is to be 'atV:C_lau.se~.--u3.6 of the Scheme, which would rrvi':e:an;g_A..ut:hat the"fa*2"mer cultivating agricultural land of hectare and up to 2 hectares. The 'other farmer' is found at Clause 3.7, ggwhiclhvfwould mean that a farmer cultivating 'A.V_'a*gri'cultural land of more than 2 hectares and up to 5 Lg./"
hectares. It is not in dispute that the holding of the petitioner is certainly more than 5 hectares,,V~.V_j:'E.ndeed the fact whether borrowing of a loan an agricultural property can»,'be:""'_¢']%.s;;'f;e¢.AV investment loan, is also to the said Scheme. A oi'.V't~h'.e* not indicate that the ,i3~urchflais§:A"«gjaii'VVV"g'a.n. agi*i'cu'i't§ural land would attract the as it may, the only requegst'i««A,rréedve ,'by~:ivr'th'ex:petititfiher in these writ petitions. consider him as 'other of the Scheme must be extended to considered by the bank.
Indeed., the" bganik required to consider his request, :ha:yin.gA.re,g'ard to the observations made by this Court.
H Herice,'V't'.h.e"following 0rder:--
"'~_Vr'espondent~bani< to consider the request of the "Writ petitions are disposed of directing the 7% //.5"
petitioner for waiver of the loan under Agricgliturai Debt Waiver and Debt Reiief Scheme, 2008. *ck/mk-