C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is challenging the order of the Collector in appeal affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, allowing the respondent No. 1's application under S. 5 of the M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the (Act)) and setting aside the sale deed in favour of the petitioner executed by the respondent No. 1 as being a prohibited transaction of loan. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Pamma is a cultivator of village Satnur, Tahsil and District Chhindwara. By registered sale deed dated 26-5-1966, he and his wife Shyambati sold 8,11 acres with a house and well out of Khasra Nos. 110/1 and 111, total area 39. 85 acres, to the petitioner Ramlakhan for Rs. 12,500/ -. The lands are unirrigated. On the same day the petitioner executed an Ikrarnama agreeing to reconvey the land if the amount is repaid within one year. The land was duly mutated in the name of petitioner. On 4-4-1981, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under S. 5 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, alleging that it was a prohibited transaction of loan, no possession was delivered, a written Ikrarnama was executed that if the loan was repaid within one year, the land would be reconveyed, subsequently time of repayment was extended indefinitely, he had paid Rs. 9000/- but the petitioner illegally dispossessed him on 29-5-1968 and the market value of the land was Rs. 50,000/- on the date of sale. The application was opposed by the petitioner saying that it was an outright sale, he was immediately put in possession, the respondent No. 1 was not a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people, as he held 17 acres of land after the sale, it was neither a loan transaction nor the petitioner has dispossessed him and a false application has been filed after lapse of 10 years. After recording evidence, the S. D. O. held that it was a prohibited transaction of loan because the sale was with a condition of repurchase on payment within a period of one year but afterwards the time of repayment was extended indefinitely, the loan was subsisting on the appointed day, the market value of the land with a house and well was over Rs. 40,000/- no possession was given but the petitioner dispossessed the respondent No. 1 on 29-5-1968. Rs. 9000/- has been repaid by the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was a money-lender. So the sale has been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to restore possession to respondent No. 1 as he has already recovered the balance amount of Rs. 3500/- by enjoying the usufruct of the land all these years. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Collector, holding that the respondent No. 1 was a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people owning less than 8 hectares of land on the appointed date, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the respondent No. 1 held more than eight hectares of land, as there was a condition of repurchase, it was a loan transaction and not a sale. ( 3 ) THE only question raised by the petitioner is that the Collector and the S. D. O. misdirected themselves by holding that the respondent No. 1 was a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people on the appointed date i. e. 1-1-1971, when they ought to have found out whether he was a holder of land in the weaker sections of the people on the date of the transaction i. e. 26-5-1966. It is also urged that on the date of the transaction, the respondent No. 1 and his wife Shyambati jointly held 39. 85 acres of land each holding 19. 925 acres which is more than eight hectares, i. e. 19. 77 acres (one hectare being equal to 2. 471 acres), so the respondent No. 1 was not a marginal farmer. It is also urged that on the date of the transaction, the respondent No. 1 and his wife Shyambati jointly held 39. 85 acres of land each holding 19. 925 acres which is more than eight hectares, i. e. 19. 77 acres (one hectare being equal to 2. 471 acres), so the respondent No. 1 was not a marginal farmer. The respondent No. 1 submitted that there are concurrent findings that the respondent No. 1 was a holder of land in the weaker section of the people, it was a prohibited transaction of loan, which was subsisting on the appointed date, based on evidence and are unassailable in the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE Act was enacted to better economic condition of holders of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people by providing further relief from agricultural indebtedness by nullifying the land grabing designs resorted in many a form by lenders of money. The assent of the President was first published in the Gazette on 31-1-1977 and it came into force from 1-1-1971, which is the appointed date. 'holder of agricultural land' in the weaker sections of the people under S. 2 (c) means a holder of land used for purposes of agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land or four hectares of Irrigated land within the State. In S. 2 (d), 'lender of money' is defined as a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, whether registered under the Money Lenders Act or not. S. 2 (f) defines 'prohibited transaction of loan' as a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in land in any of the following modes- (i) by agreement to sell land; (ii) by outright sale by separate agreement of re-sale; (iii) by outright sale with distinct oral understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon if the loan is repaid; (iv) by outright sale with condition to resell on repayment; and (v) by fraudulent transaction to defeat or designed to defeat the provisions of any law regulating money lending or interest. Section 3 states that the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other enactment. Section 3 states that the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other enactment. S. 4 provides that all prohibited transactions of loan subsisting on the appointed date or entered into thereafter on or before the publication of the Act shall be subject to protection and relief under this Act. An application can be made to S. D. O. under S. 5 by a holder of land, who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed date or entered thereafter, within such time and in such form and manner as may be prescribed for protection and relief as may be prescribed under the Act. The S. D. O. has to hold an enquiry under S. 6. Under S. 7, the S. D. O. can set aside the sale, restore possession of land and afford other relief. Appeal lies to Collector under S. 8 against the order of the S. D. O. The orders so passed are final under S. 9 and cannot be called into question in any court, Tribunal or authority. All pending proceedings in courts in relation to land, which can be subject matter of enquiry under this Act, shall be decided by the Courts in accordance with the provisions of this Act. S. 12, prohibits a lender of money from entering into a prohibited transaction of loan under S. 13, all enquiries and proceedings before the S. D. O. or the Collector are to be judicial proceedings. S. 14 bars jurisdiction of civil Courts to decide or deal with any question which is required to be decided or dealt with by the S. D. O. or the Collector. Under S. 15 all transfers of land which are subject matter of prohibited transactions of loan shall be null and void S. 18 empowers the State Government to make rules to give effect to the provisions of this Act. ( 5 ) TO attract the provisions of this Act it must be a prohibited transaction of loan, i. e. a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in the land and the loan must be subsisting on the appointed date (1-1-1971) or entered into thereafter. ( 5 ) TO attract the provisions of this Act it must be a prohibited transaction of loan, i. e. a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in the land and the loan must be subsisting on the appointed date (1-1-1971) or entered into thereafter. Firstly the borrower must be a holder of agricultural land in weaker sections of the people i. e. owning not exceeding eight hectares of unirrgated or four hectares of irrigated land while taking the loan. This court in Chhedilal v. State of M. P. 1984 Jab LJ 206 pointed out that 'weaker section' has not been defined in the Act but one who has other professional or business income or is otherwise well to do, cannot take advantage under this Act. Secondly, the loan is given by a lender of money. Thirdly the loan has to be against security of interest in land. This court in Lalloo Singh v. State of M. P. 1982 Jab LJ 586 held that-"section 4 of theAdhiniyam says that all prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act. So, to get jurisdiction under this Act, the main point to be seen is whether the applicant was holder of an agricultural land. Secondly, whether the person who has advanced the money is covered by the definition of lender of money' and lastly, whether the transaction is a prohibited transaction of loan. If these three things are satisfied, then the Sub-Divisional Officer gets jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner filed under the Adhiniyam. "fourthly the loan must be subsisting on the appointed date or entered into thereafter. So first of all we have to see whether the petitioner did not hold more than eight hectares of unirrigated land on the date of transaction i. e. 26-5-1966. Unfortunately, there is no finding on this question. The sale deed was jointly executed by the respondent No. 1 and his wife Shyambati. It recited that they jointly owned 39. 85 acres, while 16 hectares is equal to 39. 77 acres, showing each owned more than eight hectares of land. If this is to be accepted, then the suit transaction could not be a prohibited transaction of loan. But the recital in the sale deed is not correct as is evident from other documents. 85 acres, while 16 hectares is equal to 39. 77 acres, showing each owned more than eight hectares of land. If this is to be accepted, then the suit transaction could not be a prohibited transaction of loan. But the recital in the sale deed is not correct as is evident from other documents. It appears from the memo of appeal to the Collector (Annexure-D) and the written argument (Annexure-E) submitted by the parties before the Collector that 39. 85 acres were owned by the respondent No. 1, his wife and his brother Ganjlal. Ganjlal sold his 13. 61 acres to the respondent No. 1 and his wife by registered sale deed dated 21-4-1966 and thereby the respondent No. 1 and his wife became owners of 33. 53 acres i. e. less than 15 hectares, so each of them owned less than eight hectares. So the petitioner was a holder of agricultural land in the weaker sections of the people on the date of the transaction. There was a separate Ikrarnama providing for re-sale of land on repayment within one year (Annexure-A1 ). This was extended by another year as per endorsement on the reverse and the notice (Annexure-A2 ). The S. D. O. has accepted the evidence of the respondent No. 1 that the time was further extended. As such the loan was subsisting on the appointed date i. e. 1-1-1971. Since the sale was subject to agreement of re-sale, it was prohibited transaction of loan. Finding is that the petitioner was not given possession on the execution of sale deed but he illegally dispossessed the respondent No. 1 on 29-5-1968, since then he is in possession and the market value of the land sold was Rs. 40,000/-while consideration of sale was only Rs. 12,500/- and the petitioner was a moneylender. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, the petition fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-, if certified. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .