JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondent to refund the agricultural loan of Rs.38,650/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) borrowed and paid by the petitioner, with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner. 2. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he is a small farmer having three daughters who are school going. The petitioner owns a land to the extent of 1.36.5 acres which was acquired through family partition. The petitioner obtained agricultural loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) carrying interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the respondent Bank by pledging 12 sovereigns of jewels. 3. The Government of India framed a Scheme called "Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme 2008 in 2008-2009 budget. As per clause 4.1(a)(i) read with Clauses 5 & 6 of the said Scheme, a small or marginal farmer were eligible for debt waiver of loan, in the case of a short-term production loan disbursed upto March 31, 2007, overdue as on December 31, 2007 and remaining unpaid loan until February 29, 2008. 4. The other farmers were entitled to one time settlement under which the farmer was given a rebate of 25% of the eligible amount subject to condition that the farmer pays the balance 75% of the eligible amount for such loan. 5. The 'Small farmer' and 'Marginal farmer' were defined under the Scheme as under: 3.5 'Marginal farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land upto 1 hectare (2.5 acres) 3.6 'Small Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and upto 2 hectares (5 acres) 3.7 'Other Farmer' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres) 6. The case of the petitioner is that being a small farmer, loan of the petitioner was liable to be waived, resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.38,680/- (Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) deposited by the petitioner towards 75% of the loan along with interest. 7. The case of the petitioner is that being a small farmer, loan of the petitioner was liable to be waived, resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs.38,680/- (Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) deposited by the petitioner towards 75% of the loan along with interest. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that even if the petitioner is not covered under the definition of 'small farmer', then also entitled to return of jewels, as the petitioner paid Rs.38,680/- (Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) to the respondent Bank, under the Scheme towards full and final settlement. Therefore, the respondent Bank has no right to retain the jewels of the petitioner. 8. This writ petition is opposed by the respondent Bank by filing counter affidavit. The stand of the respondent Bank in para 6 of the counter affidavit is reads as under: "The petitioner had produced a certificate dated 7.4.2007 issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Periyar Kuruchi Village, Senthurai Taluk, Perambalur district, providing the following details of the agricultural lands owned and cultivated by him:- 1 Hectare = 2.47 Acre 5.75.5 Hectares = 14.17 Acres On the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidence produced by the petitioner showing that the exclusively possessed and cultivated 14.17 acres of agricultural land, he had to be classified only as an 'other farmer' under that scheme and accordingly, he was entitled to a rebate of 25% of the 'eligible amount' subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75% of the 'eligible amount' for such loan. In pursuance thereof, he was extended the said benefit of rebate of 25% of the 'eligible amount' on his paying the balance of 75% of the 'eligible amount'. In the light of the aforesaid material borne out of the record, there is no infirmity in the said action of the respondent which is impugned in this writ petition and contra contention of the petitioner that the entire amount outstanding under the loan in question ought to have been waived by the respondent under the aforesaid scheme, cannot be countenanced. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief of refunding the sum of Rs.38,650/- (Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) remitted by him towards repayment of the said loan, much less with any interest thereon @ 12% per annum." 9. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief of refunding the sum of Rs.38,650/- (Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) remitted by him towards repayment of the said loan, much less with any interest thereon @ 12% per annum." 9. The question therefore to be determined in this case is "Whether the petitioner is 'small farmer' or 'other farmer' so as to come to a conclusion whether he is entitled to waiver of 25% or 100% of the loan? 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has availed loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as small farmer against pledging of jewel when he was cultivating 1.36.5 acres of land and therefore, there is no justification with the respondent Bank to claim 75% of the amount due by treating him as other farmer. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank on the other hand, vehemently contended that the petitioner owns land measuring 14.17 acres of agricultural land as per the certificate, dated 7.4.2007 issued by the Village Administrative Officer and produced by the petitioner. 12. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that additional loan availed by the petitioner is not the subject matter of this writ petition, thereafter, certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, cannot be taken into consideration to hold the petitioner to be 'other farmer', cannot be accepted; The petitioner has not filed rejoinder to the counter to controvert the stand taken by the respondent Bank. Therefore, it has to be held that the petitioner falls under the category of 'other farmer', therefore, is not entitled to refund of Rs.38,650/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand six hundred and fifty only) representing 75% of the loan amount. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter contends that the respondent/Bank has no right to retain the 12 sovereigns of jewels pledged by the petitioner for the loan, after the loan amount has been cleared. 14. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the plea that there are other loans outstanding against the petitioner and that the respondent Bank has exercised its lien by invoking Sec.171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, jewels cannot be returned to the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. This contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the plea that there are other loans outstanding against the petitioner and that the respondent Bank has exercised its lien by invoking Sec.171 of the Contract Act. Therefore, jewels cannot be returned to the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of the contention that the bank is entitled to lien over the jewels pledged by the petitioner, the respondent Bank has placed reliance on the judgment in W.P.No.19096 of 2011 decided on 16.3.2012 (C.Lalitha Raj vs. The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of India and 3 others). 15. On consideration, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. If there is any loan outstanding against the petitioner, then the bank has lien over the jewels, as the petitioner has not produced any agreement to the contrary to defeat right under section 171 of the Contract Act. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that other loans have also been paid. If that is so, then there will be no justification with the respondent Bank to retain the jewels pledged by the petitioner. This question cannot be gone into for want of pleadings in this case. No merit, dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.