M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the order dated 10-2-1987 made in Execution case No. 206/68 on the file of the II additional Munsiff, Belgaum. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was judgment-debtor no. 4 in the said execution proceedings. He Set up a plea that he was protected from execution proceedings on account of the provisions contained in the Karnataka debt Relief Act of 1980. In that behalf, the executing court conducted an enquiry as, under the provisions of the act, the burden of disproving the claims of the debtor is on the decree-holder or the creditor. The facts which were established at the enquiry were that petitioner owned in all only a little over 4 acres of rain-fed wet-land and therefore answered to the description of a small farmer as defined under the said Act. It was also found, as admitted by the judgment-debtor himself, who was D. W. 1 at the enquiry, he owned a site measuring 100'x37' in Gondhaligalli, Belgaum City. After discussing the evidence on record, the Executing court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a debtor within the meaning of that expression and therefore was not entitled to the relief provided under Section 4 of the Act. ( 3 ) IN this Court, the Revision Petitioner contends that the Court ought to have ignored the fact that that the petitioner was owner of any substantial property in Belgaum City as long as it came to the conclusion that he was a small former and therefore entitled to the relief. ( 4 ) UNDER Section 2 (9), 'small farmer' is defined to mean a person, who, on the date of commencement of the Act, holds, whether as owner, tenant or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity and partly in another not more than two units of land, the annual income from which does not exceed Rs. 4,800/- and who has no income from any other source other than agriculture. Under sub-section (6) of Section 2, debtor is defined to mean a person who is (i) a landless agricultural labourer, (ii) a person belonging to the weaker section of the people or (iii) small farmer from whom debt or debts are due. 4,800/- and who has no income from any other source other than agriculture. Under sub-section (6) of Section 2, debtor is defined to mean a person who is (i) a landless agricultural labourer, (ii) a person belonging to the weaker section of the people or (iii) small farmer from whom debt or debts are due. 'unit' is also defined under sub-section (10) of section 2 to mean (i) two hectares of unirrigated land, or (ii) one and one-fourth hectares of rain-fed wet-land or (iii) half hectare of land having facilities for growing one irrigated crop or arecanut or sugarcane or used for growing mulbery by irrigation or (iv) quarter hectare of land having perennial irrigation facilities or facilities for growing more than one irrigated crop in a year. ( 5 ) THE question is whether a person who is a small farmer who does not belong to the weaker section of the society should be extended the benefit of the Act favourable to debtors. If the view canvassed for the petitioner is acceptedi then notwithstanding the fact that the person is affluent, but answers to the definition of small farmer, in that he owns less than half hectare of land as defined, will be entitled to relief. ( 6 ) WHEN some-what similar situation arose in the case of Kamalakar Mahavir v. Sundar and Co. , (1976 (2) Kar. L. J. 116), this Court clearly held that such construction would not be possible. The facts of that case were undoubtedly decided under the 1976 Debt Relief Act which has since been repealed by the present act of 1980. The Revision petitioner in the afore-mentioned case was having agricultural land measuring 26 acres and 37 guntas as well as site measuring 43'x27' in Raichur Town. But, undisputedly the land was not cultivated and he derived no income. Similarly there was no income from the site either. Therefore, he contended that his income was less than rs. 2. 000/- specified in that Act as the qualifying limit and as such, was entitled to the relief under the Act. All that was negatived by the Court in the following terms. It is very short and clear order and therefore deserves to be extracted in full : "the petitioner admittedly has been allotted 26 acres and 37 guntas of agricultural land and a site in Raichur town measuring 43 X27' at the partition. All that was negatived by the Court in the following terms. It is very short and clear order and therefore deserves to be extracted in full : "the petitioner admittedly has been allotted 26 acres and 37 guntas of agricultural land and a site in Raichur town measuring 43 X27' at the partition. It is not his case that if 26 acres 37 guntas of land is cultivated, he would not be able to earn Rs. 2,400/- per year. A person who owns land more than the land which a small owner can own under the Karnataka Debt relief Act and who does not make any attempt to cultivate it cannot claim that he belongs to the weaker section of society on the ground that he does not earn any amount. There is no ground to ambit the petition. The petition is dismissed". From the above, it is clear that construing the provisions of the Debt Relief Act, the court must seek out the persons who were entitled to the reliefs and not to read any particular provision in isolation of the other provisions. A person who does not qualify to be a debtor on the ground he belongs not to the weaker section of the society, cannot, therefore c'aim the benefit of being a small farmer. If one looks at the definition 'debtor', it is clearly seen that an agricultural landless labourer who stands alone to be a debtor as also a person belonging to the weaker section of the people and a small farmer. The expression 'weaker section' is defined in sub-section (11) of Section 2 to mean persons whose annual income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 4,800. 00. ( 7 ) IN the case cited, what has been decided is a person cannot own a valuable property without generating any income therefrom and then claim benefit belonging to the weaker section. Therefore, it is accepted, the mere fact that the petitioner is a small farmer will not entitle him to the relief under the Act because he owns property which will yield more than Rs. 4,800. 00 income. If he does not develop his property, then he only is to blame. Therefore, the view taken by the executing court is correct and does not call for interference. Revision Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. --- *** --- .