JUDGMENT V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition directing the respondents herein to grant the benefit of total waiver to the petitioner under the category of marginal farmer as per the provisions of "Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme 2008" in respect of his land measuring 1.95 acres situated at Thenkarai Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, covering loan A/c. Nos. 10767949418, 10767959051 and 30076737941 in the name of the petitioner as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Ref. ADWDR 2008/No.924, dated 18.3.2009. 2. The petitioner is holding agricultural land to an extent of 1.94 acres at Thenkarai Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. The petitioner is the owner of land and building situate in Survey Nos. 38/1, 38/2 and 38/3, Nalatinpudur Village, Kovilpatti Taluk, Tuticorin District. The petitioner is running motel for 18 years and residing in the first floor of the building. He obtained jewel loan for agricultural purpose. He obtained two loans on 11.4.2005 and 5.5.2005 vide A/c. No. 10767949418 for Rs.38,000/- and A/c. No.10767959051 for Rs.26,000/- respectively. He obtained third loan on 14.09.2006 vide A/c. No. 30076737941 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. 3. During the years 2005 and 2006, due to failure of monsoon and floods, the petitioner could not repay the loan amounts borrowed from 3rd respondent and redeemed jewels. Taking into consideration the acute financial stress and strain faced continuously by the farmers, the Government of India formulated a scheme called "Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme 2008" for waiver of agricultural loans under 3 categories. They are: (a) Marginal Farmers - owning up to 2.5 acres (b) Small Farmers - owning up to 5 acres (c) Others - owning lands above 5 acres 4. According to the petitioner, he is a marginal farmer owning 1.95 acre and he is entitled for waiver of entire scheme. 5. The first respondent without application of mind has held that the petitioner is owner of above 5 acres of land and he was categorized as 'other farmers' and directed him to file an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent held that he is eligible for benefit of grant of waiver and entitled to receive the same. The second respondent directed the petitioner to get debt certificate from third respondent. The second respondent held that he is eligible for benefit of grant of waiver and entitled to receive the same. The second respondent directed the petitioner to get debt certificate from third respondent. In spite of the said order, the eligible amount was not waived and the third respondent is continuously evading grant of benefit of waiver. In view of the final order by the second respondent and in total disregard to the provision of waiver scheme, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 6. The third respondent filed counter affidavit stating that agricultural gold loan can be granted mainly on the basis of the extent of land and scale of finance. The petitioner is holding 1.95 acres and according to him, he was cultivating sugarcane. He has not registered with any of the sugar mills. Therefore, he is entitled to gold loan of Rs. 12,200/- per acre and he is holding 1.95 acres and the scale of finance is Rs. 23,670/-. As per this eligible amount, the scale of finance is calculated at Rs.30,602/- and Rs.27,318/- for the two accounts. As far as the second loan is concerned, the Grievance Redressal Officer has come to a conclusion that he is not eligible for waiver. Grievance Redressal Officer calculated the waiver amounts, the petitioner is eligible and conveyed the same to the petitioner, by letter dated 29.7.2009. A copy of the same was marked to the third respondent. 7. The petitioner did not take any steps to pay the amounts received in excess of limit fixed as scale of finance. "Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme 2008" has already came to an end. The petitioner has not produced any document like Adangal to show that he cultivated sugarcane during the period in question. He has not registered himself with any of the sugar mills. The quantum of waiver has to be calculated based on the holdings and the nature of the crop. This is a disputed question which cannot be decided in the writ petition and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have considered the rival submission put forth on either side and perused the materials on record. 9. From the materials on the record, it is seen that the petitioner has availed three gold loans. According to the third respondent, the third agricultural gold loans was not obtained for cultivation of land. 8. I have considered the rival submission put forth on either side and perused the materials on record. 9. From the materials on the record, it is seen that the petitioner has availed three gold loans. According to the third respondent, the third agricultural gold loans was not obtained for cultivation of land. It was treated as investment loan for other agricultural purpose and it is not eligible for waiver. "Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme 2008." 10. Grievance Redressal Officer, by his letter dated 29.7.2009, has held that the petitioner is eligible for waiver to the extent of Rs.30,602/- for the year 2006-2007 in respect of loan A/c. No. 10767949418 and Rs.27,318/- in respect of loan A/c. No. 30076737941. In the said letter dated 29.7.2009, the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance amount and redeem the jewels. In the said letter, it has been made clear that the petitioner is not eligible for waiver in respect of loan amount A/c. No. 10767959051. The petitioner has not challenged that order. The said order has become final. The quantum of waiver has to be arrived at taking into account the holding of the petitioner and nature of crop cultivated by him. This question of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition. Further, the contention of the third respondent that the scheme has already come to an end is not disputed by the petitioner. 11. For the above reasons, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.