Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 370 (MP)

Heera Singh v. Jeewan Singh.

2006-03-09

ARUN MISHRA

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of Order (P/10) passed by Addl. Collector allowing an appeal filed by respondent Shri Jeewan Singh. ( 2. ) AN application was filed by Shri Durjan Singh, father of respondent No. 1 Shri Jeewan Singh seeking protection of the Act called M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act No. 3 of 1977" ). It was averred in the application. filed by Shri Durjan Singh that as a matter of fact loan was obtained and the document was obtained as a collateral security of loan, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- has been shown to be advanced whereas only a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was given. Money was required for purchase or land as family was unable to maintain itself in the small piece of land which was held, hence, the agreement for sale was executed as collateral security of the loan which was obtained. Civil suit was also filed by Shri Hira Singh. It was stayed owing to pendency of aforesaid application under Act No. 3 of 1977. ( 3. ) IT is contended that it was not a case of prohibited transaction of loan as defined in Section 2 (f) of Act No. 3 of 1977. Only those transactions which were entered between 1. 1. 71 to 31. 1. 77 were under the purview of the Act. Addl. Collector has not recorded the reasons for setting aside the finding of SDO. Petitioner was not lender of money as such Act No. 3 of 1977 was not attracted. Even otherwise order passed by Addl. Collector is bad in law. ( 4. ) NO return has been filed by respondents. ( 5. ) SHRI Anurag Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that order could not have been passed by Addl. Collector as Collector was competent to hear the appeal. lie has further submitted that the order passed by SDO was proper. Addl. Collector while reversing the order has not considered the reasons which were employed by the SDO for rejecting the application. ( 6. ) COMING to the submission that whether Addl. Collector could have heard the matter. No distribution memo has been placed on record to show that Addl. Addl. Collector while reversing the order has not considered the reasons which were employed by the SDO for rejecting the application. ( 6. ) COMING to the submission that whether Addl. Collector could have heard the matter. No distribution memo has been placed on record to show that Addl. Collector was not assigned the function of hearing the appeal. Thus, I find no merit in the aforesaid submission. ( 7. ) COMING to the correctness of the order passed by the Addl. Collector, the Addl. Collector has mentioned that the reason employed by the SDO for rejection of application that amount was not paid before Sub-Registrar, Registration, was not proper as no sale deed was executed, amount was not paid before Sub-Registrar, Registration, hence, it is clear that SDO had misdirected while considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also noticed by the Addl. Collector as an adverse circumstance that petitioner Shri Hira Singh had filed affidavit and did not examine himself in support of his case. Thus, an adverse inference has been drawn against him with respect to his status being of money lender. The Addl. Collector has also considered the aspect that sale deed was not got executed as per agreement, so called agreement was entered into on 20th September, 1964 and sale deed was not got executed within three months. It is clear that Shri Durjan Singh had clearly stated that he has obtained a loan of Rs. 4,000/- in order to purchase a land and a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was mentioned including the interest on the amount of Rs. 4,000/ -. it was also stated that value of the land was Rs. 40,000/- which was not accepted by learned SDO on the ground that Shri Brajlal had stated that value of the land was Rs. 24,500/per acre. The approach or SDO of evaluating the evidence was not proper. It is clear that value of the land was much more for which it was agreed to be sold. Thus, it is more probable that it was a case of loan transaction. SDO has also found that possession was that of applicant Shri Durjan Singh. As possession was not handed over under the agreement, the case of document being collateral security for the loan advanced was buttressed. Thus, it is more probable that it was a case of loan transaction. SDO has also found that possession was that of applicant Shri Durjan Singh. As possession was not handed over under the agreement, the case of document being collateral security for the loan advanced was buttressed. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any useful purpose would be served by remanding the case as prayed. I find that there is no error committed by the Addl. Collector while setting aside the order of SDO in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. I find no merit in this petition. Same is hereby dismissed. No costs.