Mathew D. Elavunkal vs The Federal Bank Ltd.

A.M. Shaffique, J.—These two cases are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment, since the issue involved in them is common.

The appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 35363 of 2010 challenging the judgment dated 12.07.2013 of the learned Single Judge. W.P. (C) No. 612 of 2014 is filed by one Valsamma Mathew who is the wife of Sri. Mathew D. Elavunkal, the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 35363 of 2010. They stood as surety for each other in respect of two loan transactions. They claimed the benefit declared by the 1st respondent Bank under the ''Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008''. According to them, they were small farmers as defined under Clause 3.6 of the said Scheme, as they own only an extent of 5 acres of land. As far as they are small farmers, they were entitled for waiver of loan amount with interest as provided under the Scheme. The 1st respondent had not extended the said benefit was the complaint.

In the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 35363 of 2010, the learned Single Judge, after considering the relevant materials, was of the view that the petitioner was having an extent of 7.5 acres of land. In the application submitted before the Bank, petitioner indicated that he was in possession of 7.5 acres of land and necessary tax receipts were also produced regarding the same. On consideration of the Scheme as such, the learned Single Judge found that the petitioner cannot be categorized as a small farmer. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner sought for the benefit of the Scheme, the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to seek waiver as "other farmer", wherein he was liable to pay 75% of the dues with a rebate of 25%. There was a direction to the 1st respondent Bank to provide the details of the amount payable by the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to pay the amount within one month thereafter. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeal has been filed. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the same relief.

The learned counsel for the appellant and writ petitioner would submit on the basis of the definition at Clause 3.6 of Ext. P4 Scheme and Explanation 1 that he is a small farmer. Clause 3.6 and Explanation read 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).

Explanation

The classification of eligible farmers as per the above landholding criteria under the Scheme would be based on the total extent of land owned by the farmer either singly or as joint holder (in the case of an owner-farmer) or the total extent of land cultivated by the farmer (as tenant or share cropper), at the time of sanction of the loan, irrespective of any subsequent changes in ownership or possession"

The term ''other farmer'' is defined under Clause 3.7 of the Scheme as under:

"3.7. ''Other Farmer'' means a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 2 hectares (more than 5 acres)."

On a perusal of the aforesaid Definitions and Explanation 1, it is clear that the petitioner does not fall under the category of ''small farmer''. The whole intention of the Scheme is to provide certain benefits under the Scheme to farmers cultivating agricultural land up to 5 acres and those farmers who are cultivating more than 5 acres of land. The definition of small farmer clearly indicates that a small farmer is a farmer cultivating (as owner or tenant or share cropper) agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and up to 2 hectares (5 acres). In so far as the provision clearly indicates that the extent of land to be cultivated can either be as an owner or tenant or share cropper. When the appellant/petitioner in his application clearly indicated that he is cultivating in 7.5 acres, he cannot claim the benefit of small farmer under the Scheme.

In the said circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge and there is no illegality or perversity in the said judgment. No grounds are made out for interference and accordingly we are inclined to dismiss the writ appeal.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, certain benefits had already been granted to the petitioner by the learned Single Judge. Since the time has already expired, we grant the appellant two months time to avail the benefit under the Scheme as ''Other Farmer''. The 1st respondent Bank shall give a statement of account to the petitioner/appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. We make it clear that if the property of the petitioner is sold, confirmation of sale shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two months.

In view of the dismissal of W.A. No. 1680 of 2013, W.P. (C) No. 612 of 2014 is also dismissed.