NAZIR AHMED Vs. DY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the above titled writ petitions, the facts are almost identical and admitted and the points of law common. All the petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by common judgement.

(2.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are borrowers or their guarantors of the respondent Banks from whom the outstanding amounts are sought to be recovered under the provisions of Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners have alleged that the provisions of Section 91 (s) of the Act are unconstitutional being violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the recoveries being made from them were contrary to the provisions of law. It is further alleged that the recoveries are not being made even under Clause (s) of Section 91 of the Act. In some of the petitions the petitioners are agriculturists and submit that they could not be deprived of the benefits which are available to them, under the Agriculturist Relief Act notwithstanding the provisions of Section 91 of the Act. The petitioners are alleged to have also been deprived of the benefit of Usurious Loan Act 1977. It is alleged that by virtue of Clause (s) of Section 91 of the Act, the creditor -Banks have been made the judge of their own cause by determining the amounts and directing its recovery through the agency under the Act. The provisions are also challenged on the ground that the same authorise the recovery of even the time barred debts. It is prayed that Section 91 (s) of the Act be declared unconstitutional and the recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent -Bank be quashed.

(3.) IN the counter affidavits filed in some of the petitions, it has been submitted that the provisions of Section 91 (s) of the Act were not discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India as alleged. It is submitted that the borrowers from the Banks are not entitled to any protection under the Agriculturists Relief Act. It is submitted that by virtue of notification No. 6 -L, 83 dated 7 -7 -1926 as amended by notification -No. 18 -L/83 dated 18 -11 -1926, the Agriculturist Relief Act of 1983 does not apply in case of loans from the J & K Bank which is a company registered under Company Act, 1977. The application of usurious Loan Act is also denied. The action of the respondent is claimed to be valid, legal and according to law. It is submitted that the Act was amended to secure the Advances made by the Financial Institutions and to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. The provisions are claimed to be purposely made with the logic and legality so as to secure the rights of the financial institutions. It is submitted that there is no equity in favour of the petitioners who have failed to pay the arrears of the loans without any just cause which disentities them from claiming any discretionary relief.