Judgment H.L.Agrawal, J. 1. This application in revision has been filed by the decree holder against the order of the executing court giving relief to the judgment debtor discharging him from the debts under Sec.3 of the Bihar Debt Relief Act, 1976 (to be referred to as the Act) according to which a debt incurred by a scheduled debtor is not recoverable from him from any of his movable or immovable porperty nor shall any such property be liable to be attached or sold or proceeded against in any manner in the execution of any decree or order relating to such debt. 2. Scheduled debtor has been defined under Sec.2 (b) of the Act. Small farmer and marginal farmer have also been separately defined in Clauses (c) and (d), respectively. A small farmers many own land measuring not more than 2 acres of irrigated land and 4 acres of unirrigated land, and a marginal farmer just half of the said areas. 3. According to the finding of the executing court, the petitioner possessed 4 acres of unirrigated land, and. therefore, he was covered by the definition of a small farmer. 4. Mr. Ramji Sharan appearing for the petitioner contended that the judgment debtor should not be treated a marginal farmer within the meaning of Clause (d) of Sec.2 of the Act inamuch as his possession was more than the prescribed limit of 2 acres of unirrigated land; the protection or the privilage should not be allowed to him. He also placed reliance upon the case of Mukhdeo Singh V/s. Most. Kaushalya Devi and Ors. a decision rendered by me. In that case the claim of the judgment debtor was that he was a small farmer, and no claim was made on the basis of a marginal farmer. Therefore no relief was given to him on that basis. In other words, I would distinguish that case on the ground that the judgment debtor did not claim the protection on the footing of being a marginal farmer. In the case in hand, the judgment debtor claimed the protection as being a scheduled debtor irrespective of further describing him with as small farmer or a marginal farmer, and, therefore, he can claim the advantage of either of the two categories of the farmers incorpor ated in the definition of scheduled debtor. In the case in hand, the judgment debtor claimed the protection as being a scheduled debtor irrespective of further describing him with as small farmer or a marginal farmer, and, therefore, he can claim the advantage of either of the two categories of the farmers incorpor ated in the definition of scheduled debtor. The argument that since his holding exceeds the limit of possession prescribed for a "marginal farmer, he cannot be given the protection of the scheduled debtor has no substance as in that event his case becomes fully covered by the definition of a small debtor. It might well be that the Legislature could have prescribed only one limit of 2 acres of irrigated and 4 acres of unirrigated land without any further classification of possession is the only guiding factor without any other requirement for qualifying any debtor as marginal farmer or small farmer. The judgment debtor is, therefore, entitled to claim advantage of either of the two classes of the farmers, when he claims the protection of being a scheduled debtor. The executing court has, therefore, taken a right view of the matter that judgment debtor was covered by the definition of a small farmer. 5. The other question was passingly argued by Mr. Ramji Sharan was that the executing court did not consider the relevant evidence of disposal of some property by the judgment debtor. I am afraids sitting in the revlsional jurisdiction it will not be permissible to appraise the evidence, and I do not find any error in the order of the executing court. 6. I would, accordingly, dismiss this application. There will be no order as to costs.