Skip to content


Jamnadas Vs. Panchayat Samiti and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1478 of 1971
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)476
AppellantJamnadas
RespondentPanchayat Samiti and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
rajasthan relief of agricultural indebtedness act, 1957 - section 2(c)--debt--amount time barred and could not be recovered--held, it does not come within definition of 'debt'.; the amount alleged to be outstanding against him in respect of the claim of the panchayat samiti, sri ganganagar was barred by limitation and such time barred debt could not be recovered.;the amount alleged to be due against the petitioner in respect of the claim of the panchayat samiti, would not come within the definition of 'debt' as contained in sub-section (c) of section 2 of the act.;(b) rajasthan relief of agricultural indebtedness act, 1957 - section 6--application relating to time barred amount--held, it is not maintainable as it does not relate to 'debt' order of district court not to be interfered.;the..........in respect of the claim of the panchayat samiti, sri ganganagar was barred by time and that the time barred debt against the petitioner was not realisable from, him. the panchayat samiti in its reply took the defence that the amount outstanding against the petitioner did not come within the definition of 'debt' as given in the act and as such the application filed be the petitioner under section6 of the act was not maintainable. the debt relief court as well as the additional district judge, sri garganagar, who heard the revision petition filed against the order passed by the debt relief count, took the view that the amount of the panchayat samiti, sri ganganagar, which remained outstanding against the petitioner was recoverable as arrears of land revenue and, therefore, the said.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner was supplied fertilizers by the Panchayat Samiti, Mirzewala (now Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar) in the year 1960 for sale to the agriculturists and certain sum of money remained cut standing against the petitioner in that matter. On April 5, 1969, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebteness Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for determination of his debts. However, in the aforesaid application it was mentioned by the petitioner that the amount due against him in respect of the claim of the Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar was barred by time and that the time barred debt against the petitioner was not realisable from, him. The Panchayat Samiti in its reply took the defence that the amount outstanding against the petitioner did not come within the definition of 'debt' as given in the Act and as such the application filed be the petitioner under Section6 of the Act was not maintainable. The Debt Relief Court as well as the Additional District Judge, Sri Garganagar, who heard the revision petition filed against the order passed by the Debt Relief Count, took the view that the amount of the Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar, which remained outstanding against the petitioner was recoverable as arrears of land revenue and, therefore, the said amount did not come within the definition of debt as given in Section 2(c) of the Act and on this basis both the courts held that the application of the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act was not maintainable.

2. In view of the order that I propose to pass in this writ petition it ii not necessary for me to examine the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid finding arrived at by the Debt Relief Court and the Additional District Judge on the question as to whether the amount in dispute was a loan recoverable as arrears of land revenue An application under Section 6 of the Act can be filed by am debtor who is liable for payment of debts. Now in order to take advantage of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, for the purposes of determination of the debts outstanding against a person, it must first be shown that he was liable to make payment of some debt and was a debtor. Section 2(c) of the Act defines 'debt' as under;

(c) 'debt' includes all liabilities owing to a creditor, in cash or kind secured or unsecured payable under a decree or order of a civil court or otherwise, whether due or not due, but shall not include land revenue or anything recoverable as land revenue other than liabilities payable under a decree of a village panchayat or any money for the recovery of which a suit is barred by limitation.

'Debtor' has been defined in Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Act as an agriculturist or a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, who is liable for dc has aggregating to one hundred rupees or more, exclusive of claims in respect of liabilities mentioned in Section 4. Thus to become a debtor, for the purposes of filing an application under Section 6 of the Act, the person must be an agriculturist or a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and besides that he must be liable for debts aggregating to one hundred rupees or more. The petitioner in his application under Section 6 of the Act himself came with the case that the alleged debt of the Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar was barred by time and that such time barred debt was not recoverable. According to the definition of 'debt', as given in Sub-section (c) of Section 2 of the Act, any money for the recovery of which a suit is barred by limitation is not included therein.

3. In the present case, it was the petitioner's awn case before the Debt Relief Court that the amount alleged to be outstanding against him in respect of the claim of the Panchivat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar was barred by limitation and such time barred debt could not be recovered In view of this averment, the amount alleged to be due against the petitioner in respect of the claim of the Panchayat Samiti, would not come within the definition of 'debt' as contained in Sub-Section (c) of Section 2 of the Act, on the petitioner's own shoeing If the money allegedly due from the petitioner to the Panchayat Samiti was, according to the pf thinner himself, not recoverable by a suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation, it was not a 'debt' in respect of which an application could be filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act for if determination Thus, in my view, the admitted case of the petitioner is that the application filed by him did not relate to a 'debt' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and was as such not maintainable for determination of such 'debt'. Thus the Debt Relief Court was right in holding that the application under Section 6 of the Act was not maintainable, although. I have arrived at the same conclusion on the basis of an entirely different reason, which is bated on the admission made by the petitioner himself in his application under Section 6 of the Act. As the application under Section 6 was not maintainable, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the order pealed by the Debt Relief Court and the Additional District Judge.

4. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //