GANGSARJAITU PRIMARY CO-OP. vs SUKHCHAIN SINGH

The only question which falls for consideration is, "whether, the complainant, Sukhchain Singh is the owner of a plot of land, measuring 56 Kanals, 7 Marlas or 28 Kanals and, whether, he is covered under the definition of ''small farmer''?". The Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, mentions the definition of ''small farmer'', as under :- " 3.6 ''Small Farmer'' means, a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres)". Further, explanation 5, mentions as follows :-

" 5. A short-term production loan and an investment loan taken by a farmer shall be counted as two distinct loans and the Scheme will apply to the two loans, separately. Likewise, in the case of a farmer who has taken two investment loans for two separate purposes, the two loans shall be counted as two distinct loans and the Scheme will apply to the two loans, separately".

Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that the complainant is a ''small farmer''. The findings given by the fora below have been called into question by the petitioner/OP, GangsarJaitu Primary Co-op. Agricultural Bank, Jaitu, District-Faridkot.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner/OP has invited our attention towards the application/ Statement moved by the complainant before the petitioner/ OP, which clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that the petitioner had admitted the case against the complainant, in the following terms :- " 1. My total land 56.03 is in (Punjab), is less than 17 acres and the Khasra number were taken in the security, they are not in surplus".

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently argued that the complainant is an illiterate person, the Field Officer had filled-up the blanks in the prescribed application form/statement, the complainant is not aware that his property was mentioned as 56 Kanals and 3 Marlas. He thumb-marked the said form, at the said place, as suggested by the Field Officer. The Field Officer did not verify the fact, whether, the complainant is the owner of that much land.

Attention of this Commission was invited towards Jamabandis which reveal that in the year 1997-98, and 2000 to 2002, and on 20.07.2008, the complainant was the owner of 28 Kanals only. The OP/petitioner has failed to rebut this solid and unflappable evidence adduced by the complainant.

We have also gone through the loan application form, produced before us. This document clearly goes to show that the petitioner / OP had given Jamabandis, upon which, his loan was sanctioned. There is also mention of mortgage deed dated 27.03.2003 executed by the complainant, Sukhchain Singh. A clear picture would have emerged if those documents were produced before this Commission. The best evidence was not adduced for the reasons best known to the OP/petitioner. The production of mortgage deed would have gone a long way to elicit the clear picture and to show as to how much land was owned by the complainant. The OP/petitioner has not approached this Commission with clean hands. They have made a vain attempt to lead the gullible person up the garden path. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed under Section 26 of the CP Act, 1986, as the revision petition filed by it is frivolous and vexatious. The said amount be paid by the petitioner to the complainant, directly by means of a demand draft, in favour of the complainant, drawn on any nationalized bank, within 90 days'' from the receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, after the expiry of said 90 days'', it will carry interest @ 12% p.a., till its realization.