Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1524/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1524 of 2010
=========================================================
ANILABEN
RAMESHCHANDRA NAIK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANAGER
& 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
UTKARSH B JANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 19/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner has prayed for the appropriate relief to direct the
respondent Bank to act upon the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt
Relief Scheme of 2008 for grant of total waiver of the agricultural
loan.
Heard
Mr.Jani for the petitioner.
The
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the
petitioner is a marginal agricultural farmer and therefore, was
entitled for full waiver of debt. However, because of the mistake in
the revenue record while making entry, the Bank has treated the
petitioner as holding the agricultural land exceeding 2.5 Acre and
the relief was extended accordingly and since the relief was not
by treating the petitioner as marginal farmer, the benefit is not
taken by the petitioner and it is under these circumstances, the
petitioner has approached to this Court.
Having
considered the above, it deserves to be recorded that the revenue
record, copy whereof is produced by the petitioner, shows that the
total holding of the agricultural land of the petitioner is 2
Hectare 77 Are 91 sq. mtr. The same in any case is exceeding 2.5
acre and therefore, the petitioner was treated as in the category
of other farmers and loan was also given on the basis that the
petitioner was holding agricultural land admeasuring 2 Hectare 77
Are 91 sq. mtr. The contention that in fact the petitioner is
holding lesser land cannot be accepted for the simple reason that
the loan came to be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the
revenue record as existed. Thereafter, the petitioner cannot be
heard to say that in reality, the petitioner is holding lesser
agricultural land and therefore, the benefit should be extended.
Apart from the above, the period of scheme is over. It was for the
petitioner to deposit the requisite amount and then to claim the
benefit at the later stage. The same is also not opted by the
petitioner.
In
view of the above, no case is made out for interference. Hence,
rejected.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top