ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. Short facts leading to the petition are that Respondent No. 4 (Sattu) purchased an agricultural land comprised in Survey Nos. 309 and 309/2814 in area 3.47 acres situated at village Dhamna Tahsil Jatara, District Tikamgarh from Respondent No. 3 vide registered sale-deed dated 5-8-1968. Thereafter he sold the land to the present petitioners vide registered sale-deed dated 20th of August, 1973 (Annexure P/l). 2. Respondent No. 3 submitted an application under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambahdhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1976") before the S.D.O. Jatara stating therein that the said land was not in fact sold to the Respondent No. 4 but was mortgaged with him for a sum of Rs. 1326/- with a condition of redemption within a period of 3 years. An agreement for redemption was executed on 6-8-1968. The amount of Rs. 1316/- included interest to the tune of Rs. 326/- and it was agreed that in case, if the Respondent No. 3 repays the amount within a period of 3 years, the land in question would be redeemed in his favour. This being so, a prayer was made by the Respondent No. 3 that the alleged registered sale-deed dated 5-8-1968 may be declared prohibited transaction of loan and that the disputed land may be restored^ the Respondent No. 3. 3. The present petitioners and the Respondent No. 4 submitted the reply and contended that the transaction of sale being on 5-8-1968 was not covered by the provisions of the Act 1976 and the application of the Respondent No. 3 was liable to be rejected on this count. 4. An enquiry was held by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jatara who recorded the finding to the following effect in his order dated 20-6-1984 (Annexure P/2): (i) Respondent No. 3 falls within the definition of holder of agricultural land in the weaker section of the people, as defined under the Act of 1976. (ii) The agreement dated 6-8-1968 was executed by Sattu in favour of Respondent No. 3 which reveals that if the payment of Rs. 1326/- (inclusive of interest to the tune of Rs. (ii) The agreement dated 6-8-1968 was executed by Sattu in favour of Respondent No. 3 which reveals that if the payment of Rs. 1326/- (inclusive of interest to the tune of Rs. 326/-) is made by Respondent No. 3 within a period of 3 years, the subject land would be handed over back to him. (iii) Sattu (Respondent No. 3) admitted the execution of the said agreement before the Collector as recorded in the order sheet dated 6-7-1977. (iv) Respondent No. 3 has obtained the loan of Rs. 1000/- from the Respondent No. 4 and the registered sale-deed dated 6-8-1968 in the light of agreement dated 6-8-1968 is prohibited transaction of loan. 5. Accordingly, S.D.O., Jatara declared the transaction of alleged registered sale-deed dated 5-8-1968 as a prohibited transaction of loan and that it did not convey title of the subject land to the Respondent No. 4, Consequently, the subsequent registered sale-deed by the Respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner has also been found to be void and ineffective. The petitioners and Respondent No. 4 were directed to deliver possession of the disputed land to the Respondent No. 3 and in case of failure, formers were directed to be evicted from the subject land and the possession of the same would be delivered to the Respondent No. 3. 6. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid order was dismissed on 22-7- 1985 vide Annexure P/3. Writ Petition bearing M. P. No. 2827/85 was submitted before this Court which was dismissed in default of appearance on 25-11-1992 vide Annexure P/5. It is not out of place to mention here that no attempt was made to get M.P. No. 2827/85 restored. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 filed an application for execution of the order Annexure P/2 which was dismissed by the S.D.O. Jatara on 29-12-1997 vide Annexure P/6 as barred by limitation. Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Tikamgarh, which was allowed on 20-8-2001 vide Annexure P/7 and the possession of the subject land was directed to be restored to the Respondent No. 3 in execution of order Annexure P/2. 7. The petitioners have challenged orders Annexures P/2, P/3 and P/7 on the ground that the alleged transaction of sale is of the year 1968 and the same is not open to challenge because it took place after the appointed day (i.e. 1st of January, 1971). 7. The petitioners have challenged orders Annexures P/2, P/3 and P/7 on the ground that the alleged transaction of sale is of the year 1968 and the same is not open to challenge because it took place after the appointed day (i.e. 1st of January, 1971). It is submitted by Shri Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners that the transaction which took place between the period from 1st of January, 1971 to 31st of January, 1977, [i.e. date of publication in gazette (Extraordinary) of M. P. at the assent of the President], they alone may be examined under the Act of 1976. Reliance has been placed on Division Bench of this Court in the case of Keshar Singh and another vs.'Bhavsingh and others, 1994 MPLJ 268 : 1994 JU 210 wherein it has been held: 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 27-6-1960 and applications filed on 31-8-1981. In the present case, it may be seen that the S.D.O. has given specific findings that the Respondent No. 3 is holder of agricultural land in the weaker section of the People. He has further found that the actual nature of the alleged transaction of registered sale-deed dated 5-8-1968 was of loan and was not that of outright sale. The agreement dated 6-8-1968 to the effect that the Respondent No. 3 would make repayment with interest and would get back the land has also been admitted by the Respondent No. 4 who was the alleged purchaser. 8. Division Bench of this Court in the case of hallo Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1983 MPLJ 453 : 1982 JLJ 586 has held as under: Section 4 of the Adhiniyam says that all prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act. So, to get jurisdiction under this Act, the main point to be seen is whether the applicant was holder of an agricultural land. So, to get jurisdiction under this Act, the main point to be seen is whether the applicant was holder of an agricultural land. Secondly, whether the person who has advanced the money is covered by the definition of lender of money and lastly, whether the transaction is a prohibited transaction of loan. If these things are satisfied, then the Sub-Divisional Officer get jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the petitioner filed under the Adhiniyam. The Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Collector both have elaborately discussed as to how the transaction is a prohibited transaction and how the person who filed the complaint is a holder of the land. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition or complaint cannot be accepted. 9. Thus, on the aforesaid parameters, it is clearly found that the S.D.O., Jatara had requisite jurisdiction to entertain the petition under the provisions of the Act of 1976. 10. Learned counsel Shri Khare, much relied upon the appointed day as per Section 2(a). His contention is that the alleged transaction of sale being of the year 1968 cannot be taken into consideration and the same cannot be reopened because it occurred prior to the appointed date. Definition contained in Section 2(f) is liable to be reproduced for convenience. 10. Learned counsel Shri Khare, much relied upon the appointed day as per Section 2(a). His contention is that the alleged transaction of sale being of the year 1968 cannot be taken into consideration and the same cannot be reopened because it occurred prior to the appointed date. Definition contained in Section 2(f) is liable to be reproduced for convenience. 2(f) "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 re-paid; (iv) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a condition incorporated in the sale-deed to re-sell it on re-payment of the loan; (v) transaction in any modes other than those specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) affecting interest in land including a fraudulent transaction or a 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. (vi) words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code or the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (No. IV of 1982) shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Code or that Act, as the case may be. The aforesaid definition is to be taken into consideration in the light of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, of 1976 which are being reproduced below: 3. The aforesaid definition is to be taken into consideration in the light of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, of 1976 which are being reproduced below: 3. Act to override other laws: The provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court or other authority. 4. All prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act: It is hereby declared that all claims in relation to a prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter, but o n 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. 11. Definition clause viewed in the light of Sections 3 and 4 clearly suggests that all prohibited transactions of loan subsisting on the appointed day may be taken into consideration. The words "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" empower the S.D.O. to reopen the transaction taking place between appointed day arid date of enforcement of the Act of 1976 on due proof as prohibited transaction of, loan. The latter portion beginning with "and includes" is of inclusive nature and will not debar the Sub Division Officer from considering the prohibited transactions which were subsisting on the appointed day. 12. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Imrat and Ors. v. Lanjua and others, 1991 MPU (KB.) 164: AIR 1991 M.P. 135 held that the provisions of the Act, 1976 are attracted even to solitary prohibited transaction of loan. 13. 12. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Imrat and Ors. v. Lanjua and others, 1991 MPU (KB.) 164: AIR 1991 M.P. 135 held that the provisions of the Act, 1976 are attracted even to solitary prohibited transaction of loan. 13. In the case of Namdep v. Collector, East Neemar, Khandwa and others, AIR 1996 SC 973 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that even a transaction of the year 1964 may be taken into consideration in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of the Act of 1976. Thus, the objection that the transaction of 6-8-1968 is beyond the purview of the Act, 1976 is highly misconceived. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed, however, without order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed