ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.6.85 passed by Collector, Tikamgarh as an appellate authority under the provisions of S.8 of M. P. Sanmaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharken Ke Udhar Dene Walon ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se ParitranTatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter called as the Act.) 2. The respondent No. 1 had filed an application before the Minister that her land Survey No. 192 which was in possession of Sukhnandan Yadav (the present petitioner) he returned back to her. The said application was sent by the Minister concerned to the office of the Collector. The Collector by his letter dt., 17.6.81 referred the matter to the S. D. O. who after receiving the application registered the application and started proceedings under the provisions of the Act. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties learned S. D. O. found that the respondent No. 1 failed to prove that there was any transaction of loan between the parties and also held that true intention of the parties was to effect the sale. He also held that sum of Rs. 2000/-was paid by the petitioner to the respondent which was a real price and a proper consideration for the said sale. Further holding that there was no agreement of re-sale or re conveyance the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any relief. The respondent No. 1 feeling aggrieved by the said order took up the matter in appeal before the Collector who by his order dated 3.6.85 allowed the appeal, held that the transaction between the parties was of mortgage, was prohibited transaction of loan and as such respondent No. 1 was entitled to get back the possession. 3. Shri Samaiya counsel for the petitioner contended that in absence of proper application inter alia pleading that the transaction was of loan the S. D. O. could not assume jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act. He also submitted in absence of the proper pleadings any amount of the evidence led by the respondent could not be looked into. According to him the petitioner was not a money lender and there being no loan transaction the Collector could not set aside the said transaction. He also submitted in absence of the proper pleadings any amount of the evidence led by the respondent could not be looked into. According to him the petitioner was not a money lender and there being no loan transaction the Collector could not set aside the said transaction. He further submits that the findings recorded by the S. D. O. were not properly appreciated and the Collector in its appellate jurisdiction has recorded wrong findings. Replying to the above arguments Shri Dutt counsel for the respondents contends that the law of pleading is not applicable to matters like present where the appearance of legal practitioner is not permissible and in cases of present nature where the people belonging to 'Kamjor Varg' are facing problems it would always be the duty of the tribunal to collect the evidence and direct the parties as to what in fact is required to be done. He further submits that from the evidence on record it is clear that respondents No. 1 was an illiterate widow therefore the entire burden would be on the other side to show and prove that the transaction was not a loan transaction but in fact and in effect was a real transaction of sale, proper and reasonable price was paid to the widow and the purchaser has not exercised any extra authority on the widow. He further submits that respondent No. 1 was required to mortgage the land with the petitioner because she was in dire need of money as her relations were involved in some criminal proceedings. He submits that the petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed. 4. According to S. 4 of the Act all claims in relation to a prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into there after but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette shall, no withstanding 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, shall be subject to protection and relief in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 5. 5. According to S.5 of the Act a holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter may apply to the sub-divisional officer within such time; and in such form and manner as may be prescribed for protection and relief under this Act. 6. According to S.6 the Sub-divisional Officer may, on his own motion in any transaction of loan and on receipt of an application u/s 5 in the transaction of loan referred to therein, make preliminary enquiry as he may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, to ascertain whether the transaction of loan is prohibited transaction or not and on being satisfied that S.4 of the Act applies to such transaction, he shall, after recording reasons therefore, proceed to conduct an enquiry into such transaction in the manner provided u/s 6. The S. D. O. shall issue a notice to the other party calling upon them to place all relevant facts and documents before him at such place, on such date and at such time as may be specified in the notice. The S. D. O. shall thereafter afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard in person and may, if necessary, examine all of the parties interested in land to elucidate information relevant to the transaction of loan. During the enquiry the S.D.O. shall for the purpose of ascertaining the true nature of transaction of loan, try to collect, as far as may be, information with respect to the particular facts well described in sub-section (4) of S.6. 7. The legislative intent behind the Act is to relieve the holders of agricultural land in the weaker section of people from such exploitation by nullifying such past transactions of loan as also to put a stop to such transactions because due to ignorance of notices of law or urgency of financial need on both such person falls an easy pray to the private money lending agencies to meet various obligations of urgent nature, scarcely realizing the legal consequences arising out of the documents which he executes or which they get executed from him by way of securities for the loan. 8. 8. According to the scheme of the Act it is the duty of the S.D.O. to ascertain the true nature of the transaction of loan and he is also required to collect information with respect to particular facts. 9. According to sub-section (4) of S.6 of the Act the S.D.O. is required to collect the evidence in relation to the following facts. :- i) the amount of the principle money; ii) the market value of the land at the time of transaction; iii) adequacy of the amount of principle money as consideration for sale in the context of the market value under clause (ii); v) Whether the consideration shown in the document was paid in whole or in part privately or before the Sub- Registrar; v) Whether possession of the land was actually delivered to the lender of money as per recitals in the said document. If not when and in what manner the lender of money obtained possession of the land; vi) what were the terms of the actual agreement between the lender of money and the holder of agricultural and including the rate of interest; vii) the extent of urgency for the loan and the availability of other sources to the holder of agricultural land to obtain the same; viii) Payment if any made by the holder of agricultural land to the lender of money towards the loan; ix) whether the lender of money is registered money lender or not; x) any other surrounding circumstances which the S.D.O. may deemed fit to consider. 10. In the instant case it does not appear that the S. D. O. ever tried to discharged his statuary obligations by collecting or trying to collect the information with respect to the facts. From the order it appears that in paragraphs 5 (1) to 5(3) he has merely referred to the statement of the respondent and her witnesses Jhappoo and Kalyansingh. In para 5 (3) of the order the S.D.O. has observed that there are contradictions in the statements of respondent 1 and her witness Kalyansingh, therefore the fact of mortgage cannot be accepted. In para 6 (1) to para 6 (4) he has merely referred to the statements of the present petitioner. In paras 7 (1) and 7 (2) he has referred to the documents filed by the parties. In para 6 (1) to para 6 (4) he has merely referred to the statements of the present petitioner. In paras 7 (1) and 7 (2) he has referred to the documents filed by the parties. Without considering the total it of the evidence and without even giving a finding as to why the evidence produced by one party is credible and reliable in comparison to the evidence produced by the other side, the total consideration made by the S.D.O. does not show application of mind. It does not appear form the order that in discharge of his statutory duty he ever tried to elucidate information relevant to the transaction of loan. When there is a bar for appearance of the legal petitioner the duty is extra heavy on the tribunal to look into the matter because the notices of the pleadings and requirements of the evidence cannot ordinarily be understood by the holder of agricultural land in the weaker section of the people. If according to the Act the salutary provisions of the Act have been enacted to relieve the holder of the agricultural land in the weaker section of the people from exploitation by nullifying such transaction of loan, the S. D. O. cannot sit idle and permit the uneducated and illiterate litigants to fight that battle without understanding or appreciating the requirements of law and the necessity of the evidence. When the provisions state that the S. D. O. shall try to collect as far as may be, information with respect to particular facts then he is duty bound to discharge his duties honestly in accordance with the requirements of law. It does not appear from the order of the S. D. O. that he ever tried to guide the parties before it as to what they were required to plead or prove, 11. In a case where the legal practitioner cannot appear on behalf of any party interested in any proceeding under the Act, then strict principles of pleadings would not be applicable but it would always be the duty of the S.D.O. to direct the parties to provide better and further details. In a case where the legal practitioner cannot appear on behalf of any party interested in any proceeding under the Act, then strict principles of pleadings would not be applicable but it would always be the duty of the S.D.O. to direct the parties to provide better and further details. It Was also for the S. D. O. to achieve the salutary object informing the parties as to what evidence was required to be led by them and if they feel in their own wisdom to lead evidence then he must exercise his wisdom for elucidating information relevant to the transactions. 12. From para 9 of the order passed by the S.D.O. it only appears that he had given certain findings but as observed above he did not consider evidence in its true spirit nor has even considered the basic legal principles. The same is the position with the order of the Collector. The Collector has also not consider the facts, the legal provisions and the requirements of law. The orders passed by the S.D.O. and the Collector deserve to be set aside. Those are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded back to S. D. 0. for reconsideration. Case No. 236-B/121/80-81 shall be restored to its original number. The S.D.O. Niwari (Tikamgarh) shall proceed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. He shall also adhere to the requirements of law in collecting the information so that justice is done between the parties, If the parties pray for opportunity to lead further evidence the S. D. O. shall grant them reasonable opportunity to lead further evidence. 13. The petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the S.D.O. to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to lead evidence and hearing. There shall be no orders as to costs. The security amount if any deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him after due verification. Petition allowed