A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Civil Court can direct delivery of possession of the mortgaged land to the debtor in execution proceedings taken out in virtue of section 9 (2) of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 (hereinafter called the Act ). A few relevant facts leading to this petition may be set out at this stage. ( 2 ) THE first respondent mortgaged his land bearing Survey No. 187 of village Gametha for Rs. 4000. 00 sometime in the year 1972 to Jinabhai Jasabhai Parmar since deceased. The three petitioners are the sons of the said mortgagee. On the coming into force of the Act the first respondent filed an application before the debt settlement officer Padra under section 8 of the Act. The debt settlement officer passed an order discharging the debt whereupon an Appeal No. 170 of 1980 was carried to the appellate officer appointed by the State Government for that purpose who modified the order passed by the debt settlement officer and reduced the debt to Rs. 1400. 00. The appellate officer directed that on payment of the amount of Rs. 1400. 00 the mortgaged land should be restored to the debtor. The debtor sent the amount of Rs. 1400 to the mortgagee by money order but the same was not accepted whereupon he filed an execution application No. 266 of 1982 for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property by depositing the said amount of Rs. 1400 in the Civil Court. The creditor filed a written statement Exhibit 12 raising the contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an execution application for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property and the remedy available to the debtor was to approach the debt settlement officer under section 1d of the Act. ( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Padra raised issues at Exhibit 14 as under : (1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain this execution petition? (2) What order? the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that in view of section 9 of the Act the civil court had jurisdiction to execute the order of the appellate officer because it was in the eye of law a decree of a civil court. (2) What order? the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that in view of section 9 of the Act the civil court had jurisdiction to execute the order of the appellate officer because it was in the eye of law a decree of a civil court. He came to the conclusion that if it was held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession in execution proceedings arising under the Act an anomalous position would arise in that one part of the decree relating to payment of amount would be excutable in the civil court while the other part relating to delivery of possession would be excutable before the debt settlement officer He held that such a situation could not have been envisaged by the legislature while enacting this welfare legislation. He therefore carne to the conclusion that the civil court had jurisdiction to execute that part of the order by which the creditor was directed to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the debtor under section 9 (2) of the Act and accordingly passed the impugned order for delivery of possession on 5/09/1982. THe creditor feeling aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition under article 227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) THE Act was enacted to provide for relief from indebtedness to certain farmers rural artisans and rural labourers in the State of Gujarat. Section 3 (1) lays down that on and from the appointed day. . . " (A) every debt outstanding against a debtor who is a marginal farmer or rural labourer or who is a rural artisan whose income does not exceed rupees 2400 per year shall be deemed to be wholly discharged;" (B) every debt outstanding against a debtor who is a small farmer or who is a rural artisan whose income exceeds rupees 2 400 per year but does dot exceed rupees 4 800 per year shall (I) in a case where any amount equal to or exceeding twice the amount of the principal has already been paid by or recovered from such debtor before the appointed day be deemed to be wholly discharged; and (ii) in any other case be deemed to be reduced to one half of the recognised debt. PROVIDED that the amount which remains to be paid by the debtor shall not exceed twice the amount of the principal. PROVIDED that the amount which remains to be paid by the debtor shall not exceed twice the amount of the principal. SUB section (2) of section 3 however provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions in no case shall a debtor be liable to pay to his creditor or creditors under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) an amount exceeding rupees 1 400 in the aggregate. Section 5 provides for the appointment of debt settlement officers. Section 6 (1) enjoins upon a debtor to furnish to the local authority within whose jurisdiction he ordinarilly resides a true statement in writing in prescribed form containing the particulars set out in clauses (i) to (vi) in respect of every debt due by him on the appointed day to his creditor or creditors. Sub-section (2) of section 6 entitles any of the creditors to furnish to the same local authority a true statement in the prescribed form containing the particulars set out in clauses (i) to (v) thereof in respect of the debt or debts due to him by the debtor. Section 7 (1) requires that after the time prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 has elapsed. the authorised officer of the concerned local authority shall on the basis of the statements received under section 6 prepare or cause to be prepared a statement in the prescribed form setting out the particulars mentioned in clauses (i) to (v) therein. After such a statement is prepared sub- section (2) of section 7 requires the said authorised officer to publish it in the prescribed manner together with a public notice calling upon all debtors and creditors mentioned therein who may have any dispute to raise against any of the particulars stated therein to make an application to the debt settlement officer having jurisdiction within such period after the date of publication of the statement as may be prescribed challenging the correctness of such particulars. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 entitle any debtor or creditor who has any dispute to raise against any of the particulars mentioned in the said statement to make an application in writing to the concerned debt settlement officer stating the grounds of his dispute against the particulars. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 entitle any debtor or creditor who has any dispute to raise against any of the particulars mentioned in the said statement to make an application in writing to the concerned debt settlement officer stating the grounds of his dispute against the particulars. On receipt of such an application the debt settlement officer must serve a notice in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed upon the opposite party asking him to remain present for the purpose of being heard in connection with the objection on a date to be fixed by him. Under sub-section (3) of section 8 the debt settlement officer on being satisfied that the notice has been duly served on the opposite party may call for such further information or particulars in relation to the debt in question as may be considered necessary and may after making such inquiry and following such procedure as the circumstances of the case may demand pass (I) in a case in which he is satisfied that the debtor is a marginal farmer or a rural labourer or is a rural artisan whose income does not exceed rupees 2400 per year an order discharging the debt completely and grant to the debtor a certificate of discharge from the debt in the prescribed form: and on the grant of such certificate to a debtor in respect of a debt such debt shall not be recoverable from such debtor; (II) in a case in which the debtor is a small farmer or is a rural artisan whose income exceeds rupees 2 400 per year but does not exceed rupees 4 800 per year an order (A) discharging the debt completely if any amount equal to or exceeding twice the amount of the principal has already been paid by or recovered from such debtor before the appointed day and grant to the debtor a certificate of discharge from the debt in the prescribed form and on the grant of such certificate to such debtor in respect of a debt such debt shall not be recoverable from him; and (B) determining in a case not falling under sub-clause (a) the amount of the recognised debt and reducing the debt in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (2) of see. (1) and sub-sec. (2) of see. 3 and the amount to which such debt is reduced shall thereupon be the amount due from the debtor in respect of the debt or debts due from the debtor and the portion of the debt or debts in excess of such amount shall be deemed to have been discharged. SUB-SEC. (4) of sec. 8 deals with a situation where no application under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 8 is received by debt settlement officer from any debtor or creditor within the prescribed period. In that case the sub- section provides that the debt settlement officer may after making such inquiry as he deems fit pass an order clause (i) or under clause (ii) of sub-sec. (3) as the facts and nature of the case may require; and on the passing of such order the consequences mentioned in clause (i) or as the case may be clause (ii) of sub-sec. (3) shall follow. Any order made by the debt settlement officer under the aforesaid provision shall subject to the decision in appeal if any under sec. 13 be final and shall not be called in question in any court. That brings us to sec. (1) which lays down that the amount of debt as reduced under the foregoing provision shall be paid by the debtor without any interest in ten equal annual instalments. Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9 which is relied upon may be reproduced. It reads as under :"9 (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec (1) the order of the debt settlement officer passed under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 8 shall be executed by the Civil Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor resides as if it were a decree or order of that Court. " On a plain reading of this sub-section it is clear that the order passed by the debt settlement officer under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 8 Shall be executable a decree or order of a Civil Court. There can therefore be little doubt that an order made under the aforesaid sub-clause can be executed by a civil court as if the said order is a decree or order of that very court. The next relevant provision is sec. (3) of sec. 8 Shall be executable a decree or order of a Civil Court. There can therefore be little doubt that an order made under the aforesaid sub-clause can be executed by a civil court as if the said order is a decree or order of that very court. The next relevant provision is sec. 14 (2) which reads as under:" 14 (2) Where a certificate of discharge of any debt is granted to a debtor or an order reducing his debt is made under sec. 8 every property pledged or mortgaged by such debtor as a security for such debt shall stand released in favour of such debtor and the creditor shall forthwith return such property to the debtor. "if despite the mandate of law a creditor fails to return the mortgaged property to the debtor the debtor may approach the debt settlement officer under sec. 15 (1) which reads as under: "15 (1) Where the creditor fails to return the property to the debtor as required by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14 and the debtor is opposed or impeded in taking possession of the property the debtor may apply to the debt settlement officer having jurisdiction in the area in which such property is situated or held and on receipt of such application from a debtor the debt settlement officer shall if he is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to obtain delivery of possession of the property in question take or cause to be taken such steps for securing the delivery of possession of the property to the debtor and may for such purpose take such assistance as he considers necessary or use or cause to be used such force as may be considered reasonably necessary. "sec. 28 empowers the State Government to make rules for all or any of the matters catalogued in clauses (a) to (1) of sub-sec. (2) thereof In exercise of the said power the State Government was framed Rules known as the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Rules 1976 (hereinafter called the Rules ). Rule 4 prescribes the form for furnishing information under sec. 6 (1); rule 5 prescribes the form for furnishing information under sec. 6 (2); and rule 6 prescribes the form for furnishing information under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 and rule 7 prescribes the form of public notice to be given under sub-sec. (2) of sec. Rule 4 prescribes the form for furnishing information under sec. 6 (1); rule 5 prescribes the form for furnishing information under sec. 6 (2); and rule 6 prescribes the form for furnishing information under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 and rule 7 prescribes the form of public notice to be given under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 of the Act. Rule 9 prescribes the period within which application under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 may be made for challenging the correctness of the particulars of the statement published under rule 8 read with sec. 7 (1) of the Act. Rule 15 refers to the issue of notice for the return of the mortgaged property. It says that where the creditor fails to return the property to the debtor as required by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14 the debt settlement officer shall on receipt of the application of the debtor issue a notice on the creditor calling upon such creditor to return the property to the debtor within fifteen days. This is in brief the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. ( 5 ) IT is clear from the scheme of the various provisions of the Act that after the statement is published the debtor or a creditor who desires to raise any dispute in regard to any particular mentioned in the said statement may do 50 by all application to be preferred in writing to the debt settlement officer having jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor ordinarily resides setting out the grounds of his dispute against the said particulars. Once such an application is received it is incumbent on the debt settlement officer to serve a notice on the opposite party asking him to remain present for the purpose of being heard in connection with the said application on a date to be specified by him. After such notice is served on the opposite party the debt settlement officer may call for such further particulars in relation to the debt in question as he may consider necessary and after making such inquiry as the circumstances may demand he may pass an order dder discharging the debt in toto and issue to the debtor a certificate of discharge or he may reduce the debt which shall not exceed Rs. 1400. 00 as provided by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Act. The scheme of sec. 1400. 00 as provided by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Act. The scheme of sec. 8 therefore makes it obvious that the debt settlement officer can pass an order either discharging the debt in to to or reducing the debt to a sum not exceeding Rs. 1 400 That section has nothing to do with delivery of possession of the mortgaged property. It only speaks of the debt being either discharged or reduced. The marginal note of sec. 9 reads Payment of debt and sub-sec. (2) thereof provides that the order of the debt settlement officer passed under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 8 shall be executed by the civil court having jurisdiction in the area in which the debtor resides as if it were a decree or order of that court. Now sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 8 refers to determination of the amount and reduction of the debt. That sub-clause does not speak about delivery of possession of the mortgaged property. It is the order contemplated under that sub-clause which could be executed by the civil court as if it were a decree or order of that court. If that sub-clause circumscribes the jurisdiction of the debt settlement officer in the matter of making of an order of determination of the amount and reduction of the debt it is difficult to conclude that sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9 which by fiction treats such an order to be a decree or order of a civil court extends to the question regarding delivery of possession. In other words under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9 an order determining the amount and reducing the debt in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) and sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 can alone be treated as a decree or order of a civil Court for the purposes of execution under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9 of the Act. That is so because sec. 8 does not confer jurisdiction on the debt settlement officer to pass an order for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property That is not necessary for the obvious reason that sub-sec. (2) of sec. (2) of sec. 9 of the Act. That is so because sec. 8 does not confer jurisdiction on the debt settlement officer to pass an order for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property That is not necessary for the obvious reason that sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14 does not leave the matter to any authority under the Act but by its own thrust ordains that once a certificate of discharge of any debt is granted to a debtor or an order reducing his debt is made under sec. 8 every property pledge or mortgaged by such debtor as a security for such debt shall stand released in favour of the debtor. The words shall stand released being mandatory in nature the Act does not contemplate an order by the bebt settlement officer for delivery of such property to the debtor. It it by the thrust of sec. 14 (2) that the property stands released in favour of the debtor and the creditor is ordered to forthwith return the property to the debtor. There is no question of adjudication by the debt settlement officer so far as release of the mortgaged property is concerned because the law itself provides that it shall stand released. Once the property stands released in favour of the debtor by virtue of sec. 14 (2) of the Act no order by the debt settlement officer in that behalf could have been contemplated by the legislature and therefore advisedly sec. 8 does not confer jurisdiction on the debt settlement officer to pass any such order. Once the dobt is discharged or is reduced and a certificate in that behalf is issued every property pledged or mortgaged by the debtor as security for the debt in question stands released by the operation of law in favour of the debtor and the creditor is called upon to return the same to the debtor forthwith. That being the mandate of sec. 14 (2) it is difficult to concur with the submission that an order passed by the debt settlement officer for the delivery of possession would be an order under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-sec (3) of sec. 8 of the Act which could be executed as a decree or order of a civil court by virtue of sec. 9 (2) of the Act. 8 of the Act which could be executed as a decree or order of a civil court by virtue of sec. 9 (2) of the Act. If a debt settlement officer has given a direction for the delivery of the mortgaged property it cannot form part of the order contemplated under the said sub-clause and cannot therefore be treated a decree for the purpose of execution by a civil court. Such a direction would be clearly outside the purview of the said sub-clause and actually superfluous in nature because no such direction is necessary in view of the mandate of sec. 14 (2) of the Act. If the mandate of sec. 14 (2) of the Act is not complied with the remedy is to apply under sec. 15 to the debt settlement officer to enforce delivery of possession of the property to the debtor. For doing so the debt settlement officer is also empowered to use such force as he may consider reasonably necessary. The scheme of the Act is therefore complete and there is no doubt that if a debtor is not put in possession of the mortgaged property in compliance with the mandate of sec 14 (2) of the Act his only remedy is to invoke the powers of the debt settlement officer under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 of the Act. I am therefore of the opinion that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession of the property in execution proceedings taken out in virtue of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 9 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN the result therefore this petition succeeds. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Padra in Execution Application No. 266 of 1982 dated 8/09/1982 is set aside. The execution application having been filed in a Court which has no jurisdiction is liable to be dismissed. It will however be open to the petitioners to withdraw the amount of Rs. 1400. 00 deposited in the execution application as the learned advocate for the first respondent has no objection to such withdrawal. Even if the amount is not withdrawn by the petitioners it will be open to the debtor to approach the debt settlement officer under sec. 15 of the Act as the same will be treated as payment to the petitioners the compliance with the order passed under sec. 8 of the Act. Even if the amount is not withdrawn by the petitioners it will be open to the debtor to approach the debt settlement officer under sec. 15 of the Act as the same will be treated as payment to the petitioners the compliance with the order passed under sec. 8 of the Act. The rule is made absolute accordingly. There ill be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .