JUDGMENT - Deshpande D.B., J.:- This is an appeal by the original non-applicant No. 1 against the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting, application dated 26-10-1976 and it arises out of the following facts. 2. House No. 134 situated at village Motsawangi was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for Katepurna river Project. Compensation proceedings were pending before the Special Lana Acquisition Officer, who passed an award for Rs. 6031.18 p. This amount was received by the present appellant. The original respondent No. 1 who is now dead and whose heirs and legal representatives are brought on record applied to the Collector on tending that she was the owner of the house and she was entitled to receive the amount of compensation and she had never transferred the house in favour of the present appellant. She, therefore, claimed that the amount of compensation was wrongly paid to the present appellant and she was entitled to receive the same. 3. After receiving this, a reference was made to the Trial Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and it was registered as land acquisition case No. 223/72 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola To this land acquisition case, present appellant and State of Maharashtra were the parties and after considering the case on merits, the learned Civil Judge held that Radhabai, original respondent No.1 was entitled to this amount and it was wrongly paid to the present appellant~ and so he passed an order that the present appellant should pay Rs. 6031.18 p. with interest at 6% per annum from 28-4-72 till satisfaction and costs of the application etc. The Trial Court directed the State to bear its own costs. That matter rested there. This decision was given on 16-10-1976. 4. Thereafter on 26-10-1976, the present appellant gave an application in the Trial Court purporting to be an application under section 15 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act and in the alternative for installments for paying the decretal amount. It appears that the learned Judge was himself not sure about the application and as first of all he passed an order on the same day to keep it for arguments. The exact order is as follows :- Keep for arguments. Heard. The act applies”. It appears that the learned Judge was himself not sure about the application and as first of all he passed an order on the same day to keep it for arguments. The exact order is as follows :- Keep for arguments. Heard. The act applies”. Immediately therefore on the same day, the learned Judge passed the following two orders: “The Decree is not in respect of loan. Hence application not maintainable and likely to be rejected”. And again after some time, the learned Judge passed the foIlowing order: “Application rejected on preliminary ground. Only registered number be given.” Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Mr. L. Mohta appearing for the appellant urged before me that it was a decree for money and as such the provisions of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 applied to the present case and therefore, the matter- deserves to be stayed. On actual reading of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, it is seen that the said Act is not applicable to this transaction. The relevant portion of this section runs as follows:-” “(1) All proceedings in execution of any decree for money ...”.... passed by Civil Court on the basis of a liability in relation to a debt incurred before the appointed day, in which the judgment debtor or defendant as the case may be ii on the appointed day, a small farmer, wall be stayed against such judgment debtor or defendant on an application made by him in this behalf during the period this chapter remains in for.” (emphasis supplied) . Mr. Mohta thus invited may attention to the definition of the word, “small farmer” and then he invited my attention to the definition of the word “debt”. Without going to the definition of the word, “small farmer” we shall go to the definition one word, “debt” and it is as follows:- “Debt means any liability in cash or kind outstanding on the appointed day being a liability arising out of a loan (with interest if the loan is c taken by a farmer, and with or without interest in other cases), whether secured or unsecured due from a debtor whether payable under a decree or order of any Court or otherwise”. It is, therefore, clear that definition of debt means it must be a liability arising out of a loan. It is, therefore, clear that definition of debt means it must be a liability arising out of a loan. The present transaction does not at all amount to a loan and the decree is in respect of money relating to the compensation of the house, which was wrongly withdrawn by the present appellant from the office of the Land Acquisition Officer although he had no authority whatsoever to withdraw this amount. This hardly amounts to any loan and, therefore, section 15 of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act has no application whatsoever to this transaction. 6. Then Mr. L. Mohta prayed that installments may be awarded. I do not think that this is a case in which appellant deserves to be granted any installments in as much as be has wrongly received amount of compensation which he had no right to receive and hence this is not a case where even inherent power of the Court should be invoked to allow installments. 7. Mr. Sohoni for the respondents pressed for compensatory costs but looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not think that the compensatory costs should be awarded. 8. The result is that appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents. Appeal dismissed. -----