ORDER R.D. Shukla, J. - 1. The petitioners challenge the order of Sub-Divisional Officer (Annexure 'D') and the Appellate order of Collector (Annexure 'C') whereby the sale of land bearing Survey No. 1187 area 9.7 acres of village Kanadia for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of the petitioner has been set-aside with the further direction of delivery of possession to respondent No.1, the vendee of the land. 2. This case has a checkered history. The petitioner, as claimed by them purchased land vide registered sale-deed dated 27.6.1960 (Annexure 'A'). The petitioner was in possession of the disputed land. 3. The respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Debt Relief Court which was registered as case No, 283/75-76 with the assertions that the transaction of sale (Annexure ‘A') was in fact transaction of loan and the land was mortgaged. Learned Debt Relief Court vide order dated 9.1.78 found that the transaction was not of loan or mortgage but the sale of land out right. Respondent No.1 filed Revision against the said order before the Additional Collector, Indore vide case No. 63/Revision/77-78 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.7.1978 (Ann. 'B'). 4. Respondent thereafter filed an application dated 31.8.81 under Sec. 5 of the M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was registered as case No. 2-A/70/81-82. The petitioners were proceeded ex parte. Learned S.D.O. vide order dated 29.1.82 directed the petitioner to hand-over the possession. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector which was registered as case No. 23/Appeal/81-82. The same was dismissed vide order dated 8.12.82. 5. Petitioners aggrieved by this order filed M.P. No. 724/82 before this Court. The same was allowed vide order dated 26.10.83 and the S.D.O. was directed to afford opportunity to the petitioners to contest the said application. The petitioners after making their appearance before the Sub-Divisional Officer filed their reply and the S.D.O. ultimately allowed the application of respondent vide order dated 11.2.86 and directed delivery of possession treating the transaction as transaction of loan (Ann. 'D'). 6. The petitioners wanted to file the appeal before the Collector but the same was not entertained unless the possession of land was delivered. 'D'). 6. The petitioners wanted to file the appeal before the Collector but the same was not entertained unless the possession of land was delivered. The petitioner, therefore, filed second petition before this Court which was registered as M.P. No. 343/86. This Court stayed the orderof S.D.O. dated 11.2.86 (Annexure 'E'). 7. The petitioners again filed appeal before the Collector which was transferred to Additional Collector and registered as Appeal No. 14/Appeal/85-86. However, the Additional Collector refused to decide the appeal so long the petition was pending in the High Court. As such, the petitioners withdrew the petition with the permission of this Court and after obtaining a direction that the stay against the order of S.D.O. shall continue till the disposal of the appeal. 8. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.2.87 (Annexure 'C'). 9. The petitioners challenge both these orders (Ann. 'D' and 'G') on the following grounds:- (a) That the S.D.O. and the Collector did not follow the directions made by this Court in the petition (M.P. 724/87) whereby an enquiry under Sec. 5 of the Act was directed to be made. As such the proceedings are vitiated and are illegal. (b) That application in Form No.1 as per Rule 3 of section 5 of the Act was not filed. Hence the S.D.O. has no jurisdiction for proceeding in the matter. (c) That there was no enquiry as to whether the respondents belong to weaker section and hold 8 hectares of unirregated or 4 hectares of irregated land. (d) That the petitioners were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined earlier i.e. before remand of the file. (e) That in view of the finding of the Debt Relief Court that the transaction was a transaction of sale and not of loan has become final and thus the principle of res-judicata applies in the case. (f) That even otherwise by no strech of imagination the transaction can be held to be a transaction of loan or mortgage and further this sale has taken place in the year 1960 and therefore, the provisions of the Act do not apply in this case. (g) That the application was not filed in time and for that reason also this application could not be entertained. 10. (g) That the application was not filed in time and for that reason also this application could not be entertained. 10. As against it the respondents have supported the order of learned S.D.O. and the Additional Collector with the assertions that respondents are Bagri by caste who are members of Scheduled Tribe and the petitioners are carrying on the money lending business regularly. 11. The respondent has obtained a loan of Rs. 1,200/- in the year 1959 from the petitioner on an interest @ 1.50 paise per annum. This increased to Rs. 2,000/- because of the interest. The respondent again obtained Rs. 500/- on a conditional sale and thereafter the document referred above dated 20th July, 1960 was executed and registered. Respondents are illiterate persons and taking advantage of this position of respondents petitioners instead of getting deed of mortgage got the deed of sale executed. 12. The respondents have repaid Rs. 2,500/- by year 1976. But the petitioners failed to redeliver "the possession to the respondents. The petitioners have fraudulently obtained the deed of sale which is illegal and void. The respondents thereafter filed an application before the Revenue Authorities. The respondents filed application before the Debt Relief Court and thereafter filed application under the present Act on 30.1.81 (Annexure 'C') before the S.D.O. This Act has been extended upto 31.1.1984 vide notification No. 247-5-2/7/NF dated 31.1.83 published in M.P. Gazette Extra ordinary dated 31.1.83 at page 259 (R/6). 13. Learned S.D.O. after making due enquiry passed the order (Ann. 'D'). The appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Addl. Collector. 14. It has further been asserted that application was in order within time and the S.D.O. has made proper enquiry and has rightly held the transaction to be a transaction of loan and mortgage. The appeal against that order has also rightly been dismissed. The respondents have been delivered possession by the said order. 15. The S.D.O. has given a finding after due enquiry and appreciation of fact and the same cannot be agitated before this Court in a writ petition. 16. The Act defines 'appointed day' means the 1st day of January, 1971. The appeal against that order has also rightly been dismissed. The respondents have been delivered possession by the said order. 15. The S.D.O. has given a finding after due enquiry and appreciation of fact and the same cannot be agitated before this Court in a writ petition. 16. The Act defines 'appointed day' means the 1st day of January, 1971. It further defines 'prohibited transaction of loan' as follows- "prohibited transaction of loan" means a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in land, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in any of the following modes, namely:-- . (i) agreement to sell land with or without delivery of possession; (ii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession accompanied by separate agreement to re-sell it; (iii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a distinct oral understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon if the loan is repaid; (iv) transaction "in any modes other than those specified in clauses (i) to (iv) affecting interest in land including a fraudulent transaction designed to defeat the provisions of any law regulating money lending or interest for the time being in force, and includes all those transactions in which a lender of money has, after the appointed day but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, obtained possession of land of the holder of agricultural land through Court or by force or otherwise or obtained a decree for such possession towards satisfaction of loan; 17. Section 4 of the Act makes a declaration that all claims in relation to a prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other enactment for the time being in force or any decree or order, if any, of any Court or authority, be subject to protection and relief in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Now, therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the transaction under dispute amounts to a prohibited transaction of loan. 18. Now, therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the transaction under dispute amounts to a prohibited transaction of loan. 18. It is not in dispute that the registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner was executed on 27.6.60. No document showing any separate agreement to resale has been filed. The respondent-applicant has on the other hand stated that it was a transaction of mortgage and he has obtained a loan on various dates. The burden of proving this fact lies on the respondent though while exercising its power under extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not required to go into the controversial facts but broad principles of law can ordinarily be looked into and the Court can further examine as to whether the finding arrived at is in accordance with law or legal provisions. 19. Since the sale has taken place in the year 1960 nearly eleven years before the appointed day, it was incumbent upon the respondent-applicant to have proved that the transaction of loan subsisted upto that day. In the absence of any document clear and cogent evidence to that effect this transaction could not be reopened after lapse of nearly 21 years, the sale-deed is dated 27.6.60 and applications filed on 31.8.81. 20. While reopening any transaction taking it to be a prohibited transaction of loan, the S.D.O. is required first to come to a conclusion that the applicant respondent is a holder of agricultural land as per section 2 (c) of the Act There is no finding on that point. 21. Now so far as the finding of the application in a particular form as per Rule 3 of section 5 is concerned, the same would amount to an irregularity only and that would not vitiate the order. However, while making enquiry as the advocates are not permitted to appear in the case the S.D.O. is required to follow the principles of natural Justice and allow the party against whom the application has been filed to cross-examine the witnesses produced during enquiry. Refusal of cross-examination of witnesses of applicant in such cases would amount to gross injustice. It appears-the petitioner N.A. was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses that in itself would be sufficient to quash the order. 22. Refusal of cross-examination of witnesses of applicant in such cases would amount to gross injustice. It appears-the petitioner N.A. was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses that in itself would be sufficient to quash the order. 22. It is an admitted fact that earlier an application was filed by applicant respondent before the Debt Relief Court and that has ultimately been decided against applicant-respondent. It is thus, apparent that an enquiry in the case about its being a transaction of sale or mortgage was already done by competent authority. There was a clear finding in favour of petitioner- non-applicant and as against the respondent-applicant, and in such a situation the principle of resjudicata would be attracted otherwise, there will be no finality in the matter and purchase of land would be subject to harassment all the time and whenever a fresh application to that effect is made. 23. In cases of defective enquiries of where the opposite parties have been deprived of opportunity of cross-examination, normally the cases are remanded back for further enquiry. But in this case since the transaction of sale dated 27.6.60 does not come within the definition of prohibition transaction of loan and that there has been an earlier enquiry into the matter and the decision thereon has taken final shape against the applicant-respondent, we are not inclined to remand the case for further enquiry into the "matter. 24. In view of the discussion above the petition succeeds and the orders Annexure 'D' and 'G' are quashed. As a result if the possession of land has been delivered to the respondent it shall be restored back to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances, the parties shall bear their own cost, security-deposit, if any, be refunded after due verification.