ORDER S.H.A. Raza, J. - A short but interesting point affecting the jurisdiction of the execution court, in a case arising out of a money suit, to decide as to whether the petitioner was a "small farmer" or not, and as to whether this question was exclusively triable by the Debts Settlement Officer appointed under the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 or this question can be decided by the executing court is, involved in this writ petition. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that opposite party No. 3 filed a suit for recovery of a sum of rupees three thousand together with interest against the petitioner on the basis of two promotes executed by the petitioner in favour of opposite party No. 3 on 6th August, 1970 one for a sum of rupees one thousand, and the second on 16-10-1970 for a sum of rupees two thousand. On 17-12-1976 the suit was decreed. Thereafter the opposite party No. 3 applied for execution of the decree. In the mean time, the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977) was enforced with effect from 21-2-1977. The petitioner claiming himself to be `Small farmer' within the meaning of the Act, preferred an application before the Debt Settlement Officer appointed under the Act for scaling down the debt in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Debt Relief Act. 1977. The petitioner also preferred an application before the Executing Court to the effect that the execution proceedings may be stayed and may be disposed of only after the decision of the matter in question by the Debt Settlement Officer. The opposite party No. 3 contested the said application on the ground that the petitioner was not small farmer as he pressed a hauler machine, a tube-well and electric power connection in his name. 3. The parties of the said case adduced the documentary evidence as well as filed affidavit in support of their contentions. On 19-2-1979 the Execution Court (opposite party No. 2) rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Faizabad, which was also dismissed on 18-12 1979. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner preferred this writ petition. On 19-2-1979 the Execution Court (opposite party No. 2) rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Faizabad, which was also dismissed on 18-12 1979. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner preferred this writ petition. Section 2(11) of the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977 defines small farmer as under : "(11) "Small Farmer" means a person residing in a village who, on the date of commencement of this Act, held irrigated land exceeding one hectare but not exceeding two hectares, and whose principal source of livelihood is income from agricultural land or by manual labour on such land and includes a person cultivating land as an asami or as a share-cropper." Section 19(1) of the Act provides for the determination of the debt by the Debt Settlement Officer on the application of the small farmer Section 19(2) of the Act reads as under :- "(2) Every decision of the Debt Settlement Officer determining the amount of the doubt under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the result of an appeal under Section 23, be final and shall not be called in question in any civil court." Section 20 of the Act provides fora maximum liability of a small farmer and Section 21 thereof lays down that every debt in excess of the amount determined under Section 19 of the Act shall stand discharged and shall not be recoverable. 4. Section 22 of the aforesaid Act which is most relevant for the decision of this writ petition is reproduced below :- "22. Bar to certain suits : - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force : (a) no civil or revenue court shall entertain a suit, application or proceeding against a small farmer in respect of any debt to which the provisions of this chapter apply : (b) every such suit, application or proceeding pending before any court on the date of commencement of this Act shall abate :- (c) no decree of a civil court in relation to the debt to which the provisions of this Chapter apply shall he executed." 5. Section 30 of the Act further provides as under : "30. Section 30 of the Act further provides as under : "30. Finality of decisions If any question arises in any proceeding under this Act whether a loan or liability is a debt or not or whether a person is a debtor or a small farmer or not, the decision of the Tahsildar or the Debt Settlement Officer, as the case may be, shall, subject to the result of an appeal under Section 8 or Section 23, be final, and shall not be called in question in any court." 6. A perusal of Sections 19(1) and 22 of the Act indicates that the Debt Settlement Officer had been vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the person is a `small farmer' or not and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining or deciding this question had been completely taken away. The decision of the Debt Settlement Officer on the said question is final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Section 22 of the Act puts a complete embargo upon the rights of civil and revenue courts in entertaining any suit, application or proceedings against a `small farmer' in respect of any debt to which the provision of Chapter 4 of the said Act, apply. It further provides that any proceedings pending before any such court on the said date shall abate and any decree of Civil Court to which the provisions of Chapter 4 apply shall be executed. 7. The question as to whether in any proceedings under the said Act i.e. whether a loan or liability is a debt or not or whether a person is a debtor or small farmer or not, the decision of the Tahsildar or the Debt Settlement Officer, as the case may be, shall subject to the result of an appeal under Section 8 or Section 23 of the aforesaid Act be final and shall not be called in question in any Court, can only be decided in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 8. In view of the aforesaid provision, the question as to whether the petitioner is a small farmer or not can only be determined by the Debt Settlement Officer and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. 9. 8. In view of the aforesaid provision, the question as to whether the petitioner is a small farmer or not can only be determined by the Debt Settlement Officer and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same. 9. Further more the Civil Court cannot execute the decree in view of sub-section (c) of Section 22 of the Act. The Executing Court as well as the District Judge committed a manifest error of law by giving a finding to the effect that the petitioner was not a small farmer, and this assumed jurisdiction which is not vested in them under law. This question can only be determined by the Debt Settlement Officer appointed under the U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. 10. In view of what has been indicated herein above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued and the order dated 18-12-1979 contained in, Annexure-5 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad as well as the order dated 19th February, 1979 passed by Munsif Sadar, District Faizabad are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.