JUDGMENT By means of this petition, petitioner Rewaram has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.7.1997. Annexure-D to the petition, passed by the Collector Durg in Revenue Appeal No. 1-B/121/86-87. The matter relates to "M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (for brevity hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Nohru alias Nohar Singh, the father of petitioner Rewaram moved the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durg under, section 5 of the Act setting up a case that he took from Abdul Haq a sum of Rs. 1,400/- by way of loan and as a security of the loan, he executed a mortgage deed of his Bhumiswami land Khasra No. 33, area 0.85 acree which was registered in favour of Abdul Haq on 28.5.1971 but was registered as a sale deed. It was a condition that after payment of the loan amount the land shall be returned. Accordingly he prayed for the return of the land. During the pendency of the case, father of the non-applicant, viz. Nohar Singh died and in his place Rewaram, the present petitioner, was substituted. The SDO taking the Benama by way of security for loan and accordingly on 16.9.1986 annulled the same and directed for possession being delivered to the applicant. Against this order an appeal was preferred by Abdul Haq before the Collector. The appeal was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 1-B/121/86-87. The Collector considered the matter and allowed the appeal after setting aside the order of the SDO. The present petition is at the behest of Shri Rewaram. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ku. Rama Gupta and the learned State counsel Shri Vivekanand Awasthy in the revised cause list. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 was not present, but on his behalf Shri K.P. Kushwaha appeared. He did not speak a word as it appears that he was not prepared at all with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Collector is erroneous on two counts. Firstly, the Collector has not recorded finding that the amount of loan was not returned by the applicant before the SDO and secondly it was not for the applicant to prove that non-applicant was a money lender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Collector is erroneous on two counts. Firstly, the Collector has not recorded finding that the amount of loan was not returned by the applicant before the SDO and secondly it was not for the applicant to prove that non-applicant was a money lender. So far as the first submission is concerned it has no substance as the witness of the applicant u/s 5 of the Act though has stated that the land is dispute was mortgaged with the non-applicant, he has failed to state that the father of Rewaram has returned the amount of loan taken by him or not. In the application u/s 5 of the Act even no mention was made by Nohar Singh regarding the fact that amount of loan taken by him was returned. The submission has thus no substance. The second submission is regarding establishment of the fact by the application u/s 5 of the Act that the non-applicant was a money lender. It is regarding establishment of the applicant as a money lender. Money lender is a word which has got different connotation than the word 'lender of money'. Under the Act word is 'lender of money'. A person who has lended money as a solitary instance would bring him within the ambit of word 'lender of money'. In view of this, whether the petitioner has established or not that the non-applicant was a money lender, has no effect and nothing hinges on it. In view of above, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, may be refunded.