IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1755 of 2009()
1. P.D.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. SYNDICATE BANK REP.BY THE CHAIRMAN,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SUNDICATE BANK,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :18/08/2009
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 1755 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 30.01.2009 in WP(C) No.28881 of 2008, the
appellant/petitioner has approached this Court in the present
appeal.
2. The appellant/petitioner has sought for quashing of
Ext.P5, the communication received from the respondent
Bank, not excepting him so far it went against the petitioner
and also for a declaration that he is a small farmer and as
such his entire liability is entitled to be waived under the
Scheme Ext.P2. The main contention of the
appellant/petitioner before the learned Single Judge and
before this Court is that the petitioner is holding land along
with his son, no doubt he is holding land about 5.4 acres,
but as he has mortgaged an area of 2.5 acres which would
be his share after division of the family, taking into
WA No.1755/09
-:2:-
consideration sub Clause 2 of Clause 3.7 of the Scheme, if the
remaining extent is taken as a holding, he definitely falls under the
category of small farmers. By looking into Ext.P2 scheme
especially the definitions of “marginal farmers”, “small farmers” and
“other farmers”, a reading along with the Explanation it is clear that
in case of joint holdings like joint members of the family, the entire
extent of land held by such family has to be taken into
consideration. The benefit under Explanation (2) is only available
to group of farmers who pool together their holdings and in such
cases the largest holding in the pool should be taken as basis for
the purpose of classification of farmers as either marginal farmers,
small farmers or other farmers. Admittedly, this is not a case
where the petitioner and his son have pooled together their land
and on the other hand, admittedly they are joint holders of the land
and as such, no bifurcation as contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on the basis of Sub Clause 2 of Clause 3.7 of the
Scheme can be held in his favour. The learned Single Judge and
the respondent have rightly taken this aspect into proper
consideration and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for
WA No.1755/09
-:3:-
entitlement of waiver of entire liability under the category of small
farmer. So far as the other benefit is concerned under Ext.P5, it is
already given and as such Ext.P5 being in favour of the petitioner
need not be quashed. The writ appeal stands dismissed.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
A.K. Basheer,
Judge.
ttb