RAMSANG GABABHAI VASAVA Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVES AND APPELLATE OFFICER VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NANAVATI J. ....... ... ... ... ...

(2.) The petitioner claiming to be a debtor and a marginal farmer applied for the reliefs under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Debtors Relief Act to the Debt Settlement Officer Karjan. After following the procedure prescribed by sections. 6 and 7 of the Act the said application was heard by the Debt Settlement Officer. On consi- deration of the evidence led before him be found that the petitioner possessed only acres 3-16 gunthas of land and that he was earning his livelihood principally by cultivating agricultural lands and therefore he was a marginal farmer as defined by the Act he also found that the debt was outstanding since 1975 and therefore the provisions of section 3 of the Act applied to the said debt. By his order dated 4 he held that the debt stood completely discharged and on that basis he issued a certificate to that affect.

(3.) . Against the said order of the Debt Settlement Officer respon- dent No. 2 - creditor preferred an appeal to the District Registrar Co- operatives and Appellate Officer Baroda. Various contentions were raised before him on behalf of respondent No. 2. The Appellate Officer upheld the contention of the creditor-respondent No. 2 that in view of the settlement between the parties arrived at in Regular Civil Suit No. 306 of 1978 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dabhoi it was not open to the petitioner to contend anything to the contrary before the Debt Settlement Officer. If the petitioner believed that he was entitled to the benefit under the provisions of the Act he ought to have applied to the Civil Court for getting the proceedings under the Act adjourned. Since he had not done so the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to proceed further in the suit; and the compromise decree passed by it cannot now be challenged by the Appellate Officer allowed the appeal set aside the order passed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter the Appellate Officer allowed the appeal set aside the order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer and cancelled the certificate issued by him in favour of the petitioner. It is this order passed by the Appellate Officer which is challenged in this petition.