G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) NANAVATI J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) THE petitioner claiming to be a debtor and a marginal farmer applied for the reliefs under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Debtors Relief Act to the Debt Settlement Officer Karjan. After following the procedure prescribed by sections. 6 and 7 of the Act the said application was heard by the Debt Settlement Officer. On consi- deration of the evidence led before him be found that the petitioner possessed only acres 3-16 gunthas of land and that he was earning his livelihood principally by cultivating agricultural lands and therefore he was a marginal farmer as defined by the Act he also found that the debt was outstanding since 1975 and therefore the provisions of section 3 of the Act applied to the said debt. By his order dated 4 he held that the debt stood completely discharged and on that basis he issued a certificate to that affect. ( 3 ) ). Against the said order of the Debt Settlement Officer respon- dent No. 2 - creditor preferred an appeal to the District Registrar Co- operatives and Appellate Officer Baroda. Various contentions were raised before him on behalf of respondent No. 2. The Appellate Officer upheld the contention of the creditor-respondent No. 2 that in view of the settlement between the parties arrived at in Regular Civil Suit No. 306 of 1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dabhoi it was not open to the petitioner to contend anything to the contrary before the Debt Settlement Officer. If the petitioner believed that he was entitled to the benefit under the provisions of the Act he ought to have applied to the Civil Court for getting the proceedings under the Act adjourned. Since he had not done so the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to proceed further in the suit; and the compromise decree passed by it cannot now be challenged by the Appellate Officer allowed the appeal set aside the order passed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter the Appellate Officer allowed the appeal set aside the order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer and cancelled the certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter the Appellate Officer allowed the appeal set aside the order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer and cancelled the certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioner. It is this order passed by the Appellate Officer which is challenged in this petition. ( 4 ) IN view of the exemption provided in section 27 of the Act the Appellate Officer in this case possibly was led away by the aver- ments made in the plaint in the Civil Suit that the amount which was claimed was towards the loan raised by the petitioner for purchasing goods essential for the maintenance of his family. Since the petitioner had not raised any contention to the contrary before the Civil Court the Appellate Officer inferred that thereby the petitioner had admitted that the debt did not fall within the purview of the Act. This inference was also drawn from the fact that no appeal was filed by the debtor against the decree passed by the Civil Court. In my opinion the entire Approach of the Appellate Officer is erroneous. It was the duty of the Appellate Officer to come to his own conclusion on the basis of the evidence led in these proceedings as to whether the debt was an exempted one or it fell within the purview of the Act. Merely because no con- tention was raised by the petitioner that he was a marginal farmer and that the debt was covered by the Act no inference adverse to the petitioner could have been drawn in these proceedings. All such questions are required to be decided by the Debt Settlement Officer under sec. 12 of the Act. In view of these provisions the petitioner might not have raised such contentions before the Civil Court. The Appellate Officer has also overlooked the provisions contained in section II of the Act which provides that no Civil or revenue Court shall entertain any suit appeal or application for revision to recover any debt to which the provisions of the Act apply. It was therefore incumbent upon the Appellate Officer to find out on his own whether the provisions of the Act applied to the debt in question or not. It was therefore incumbent upon the Appellate Officer to find out on his own whether the provisions of the Act applied to the debt in question or not. If the debt of the petitioner is covered by the Act then obviously the Civil Court could not have entertained the suit filed in that Court and the decree passed by it will have to be regarded as a nullity particularly when it had also not applied its mind to this question before passing the compromise decree. Since the Appellate Officer has not considered all these relevant aspects and has passed the impugned order without proper application of mind it deserves to be quashed and set aside. .