JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

The petitioner/complainant namely Ramdhari Yadav alongwith his brother namely Ramsevak Yadav obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent for purchase of a tractor.  They defaulted in timely repayment of the said loan.  The Government, in order to mitigate the difficulties being faced by the farmers in repayment of the loans taken by them came out with a scheme known as Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.  In the said scheme, the farmers were divided into three categories, namely ‘marginal farmers’, ‘small farmers’ and ‘other farmers’.  Clause 3.6 of the scheme which defines the terms ‘small farmers’ reads 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).

The benefit of the aforesaid scheme however, was not extended to the petitioners though their case is that being small farmers, they were entitled to waiver of the entire eligible amount and in any case, even if they are held to be ‘other farmers’, they were entitled to partial waiver of the debt in terms of clause 6.1 of the scheme which reads as under:

6. Debt Relief

6.1. in the case of ‘other farmers’, there will be a One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’ subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’;

Provided that in the case of revenue districts listed in Annex-l, ‘other farmers’ will be given OTS rebate of 25 per cent of the ‘eligible amount’  Rs.20,000, whichever is higher, subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of the 'eligible amount’.

          Since no relief under the aforesaid scheme was provided to the petitioner and his brother, the petitioner alone approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking the said benefit.  The complaint was resisted by the respondent primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not a small farmer and was not entitled to any waiver under the aforesaid scheme. 

2.      The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the respondent bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 02.05.2017, the State Commission allowed the said appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

3.      The first question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner was a marginal farmer within the meaning of clause 3.6 of the debt waiver scheme.  It would be seen from the aforesaid clause that the emphasis of the scheme is upon the extent of the land which a farmer was cultivating.  If the land under his cultivation was more than one hectares but not more than two hectares, he was to be treated as a small farmer.  The learned counsel for the respondent bank has drawn my attention to the letter dated 10.11.2004 addressed jointly by the petitioner and his brother to the Manager, Allahabad Bank.  The English translation of the said letter, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

In this regard I want to submit that we have our own 4.25½ Acres land, that will be mortgaged by us. Beside this we do forming on our family’s 15 acre and on 8 acre land of others in this way we do farming on total 27.25½ acre.

          It would thus be seen that though the petitioner and his brother owned less than five acres of land, they were cultivating land measuring 15 acres belonging to their family and land measuring 8 acres belonging to others thereby cultivating total land admeasuring 27.25½ acres.  The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner and his brother were not cultivating family land and the land belonging to others as owners, tenants or share croppers, they were still qualified as small farmers.  In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if a farmer is cultivating more than five acres of land but the said cultivation is not as owner, tenant or share cropper, he would still be treated as a small farmer, in terms of clause 3.6 of the scheme.  I however, find myself unable to accept the contention.  Firstly, the petitioner has not disclosed what exactly was his arrangement with the family members who owned 15 acres of land and with other persons who owned 8 acres of land being cultivated by him and his brother.  This was a matter exclusive in the knowledge of the petitioner and his brother and therefore, ought to have been disclosed in the consumer complaint.  As noted earlier, the emphasis of the scheme is on giving the full benefit of the marginal farmers and small farmers.  A person cultivating more than 27.25½ acres of land, in my opinion, was not intended to be covered under the definition of small farmers given in clause 3.6 of the scheme.  Therefore, the petitioner and his brother cannot be treated as small farmers within the meaning of the above referred scheme. 

          The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of clause 7.1 of the scheme, the bank was required to prepare a list not only of ‘small and marginal farmers’ but also of the ‘other farmers’ eligible for debt relief under the scheme.  The said list was to be displayed on the notice board of the Branch on or before 30.06.2008.  On a perusal of the complaint, I find that it contains no averment that no such list envisaged under clause 7.1 of the scheme was actually prepared by the bank and displayed on its notice board.  In any case, even if such a list was not prepared or displayed, nothing prevented the petitioner and his brother from approaching the bank and submitting an application for grant of the partial waiver of the debit in the category of the ‘other farmers’.

4.      The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if he does not qualify as a small farmer, he is entitled to partial waiver of the loan in terms of clause 6.1 of the scheme, as extracted hereinabove.  Again I am unable to agree with the learned counsel.  The one time settlement scheme envisaged for other farmers required payment of 75% of the eligible amount by the other farmers in order to avail the benefit of a rebate of 25% of the eligible amount.  As noted in para 7.3 of the scheme, a farmer, to be in the category of other farmers, was required to give an undertaking agreeing to pay his share in not more than three installments and the first two installments ought to be for not less than one-third of his share.  The last dates for payment of the installments were also specified in the scheme.  The petitioner and his brother never applied for partial waiver of the debt in the category of the other farmers.  If they wanted such a benefit, they ought to have applied under the aforesaid scheme, and given an undertaking to pay 75% of the eligible amount.  After furnishing the said undertaking, they were actually required to pay 75% of the eligible amount by 30.06.2009.  That having not been done, the benefit of the one-time settlement scheme available to the ‘other farmers’ cannot be extended to them. 

The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.