VIJAY BISHNOI, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this intra - court appeal against the order dated 23.07.2013 passed in CWP No. 9423/2012 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to entertain the writ petition against the order dated 07.01.2011 as passed by the Debt Relief Court, Kapasan (District Chittorgarh) in DRC case No. 2/2005.
(2.) AS regards the subject of this appeal, the sum and substance of the matter is that in the proceedings taken up against him in the Debt Relief Court, the present appellant raised an objection that he did not answer to the description of an 'agriculturist' within the meaning of the expression used in the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957. The issue arising on this objection was considered and determined by Debt Relief Court in its order dated 07.01.2011. Therein, after noticing the evidence on record, the Court rejected the contention of the appellant that his main source of livelihood was that of contractorship and held that agriculture was the principal source of his earning. In the writ petition sought to be maintained against the order aforesaid, the learned Single Judge took note of all the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant and found no reason to interfere while observing, inter alia, as under: "From perusal of order impugned, it is apparent that the petitioner is not a registered contractor. It is also not in dispute that he earned a sum of Rs. 31,000/ - and odd by sale of Mustard Seeds yield. The learned trial court had also taken into consideration availability of agricultural land with the petitioner and further has admitted agriculture operations over it. True it is, merely having revenue record pertaining to agricultural land is not sufficient to establish that a person is an agriculturist but in the instant matter the trial court has taken into consideration all other relevant factors, which clearly indicates involvement of the petitioner in agriculture and resting of his main livelihood on that, as such, no interference of this Court in the finding of fact is required while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India." Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that for merely having received some share in the agricultural land by way of succession would not bring the appellant within the definition of agriculturist, particularly when he was not deriving his livelihood wholly or mainly by agriculture. We are afraid, the submissions do not make out a case for interference.
(3.) THE Debt Relief Court has the jurisdiction to deal with issue as raised and to consider and determine the same with reference to the material on record. The Debt Relief Court has indeed noticed the evidence as adduced, oral and documentary and then, has recorded the specific finding that the principal source of earning of the appellant was agriculture and not contractorship, as alleged..;