SATPAL AND ANR. versus BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 17-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
SATPAL AND ANR.
v.
BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2020)
JANUARY 17, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Debt Relief – Debt Relief Scheme for agriculturists – The
appellants-farmers took a loan from the first respondent for
purchasing a tractor – Appellants sought a waiver of loan under
the notified schemes – However, their claim was denied – The
District Forum held that appellants fell in the category of small
farmers and amount was waived – However, the National
Commission denied complete waiver of loan – On appeal, held:
The National Commission came to the contrary conclusion on the
sole ground that the land of the appellants was situated in the
district which was not included in Annexure-I u/cl. 6 of the scheme
– However, the appellants had made claim u/cl.5 and not u/cl.6 –
Therefore, the finding of the National Commission was erroneous
– Further, explanation 2 to the definition of the marginal farmer,
small farmer and other farmer provided that the largest land
holding in the pool shall be the basis for the classification of all
farmers – u/cl. 3.6 of the scheme, a ‘small farmer’ meant a farmer
cultivating agricultural land of more than 1 hectare and upto 2
hectares (5 acres) – In the instant case, both the farmers had a
holding of 38 Kanals eleven marlas each – The District Forum had
carefully evaluated this aspect and came to the conclusion that the
largest of the landholdings of the two appellants was 4 acres 6
kanals and eleven marlas and hence both the appellants fell in the
category of small farmers – The findings was in terms of the
provisions and was correct – Thus, the judgment of the National
Commission set aside and the order of the District Forum which
was confirmed in appeal by the State restored.
The appellants-farmers took a loan from the first
respondent in 2008 for purchasing a tractor. The loan remained
outstanding. Thereafter, an Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt
   [2020] 5 S.C.R. 34
34
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
35
Relief schemes were notified. The farmers were categorised into
three categories: (1) marginal farmer; (ii) small farmers and (iii)
other farmers. The appellants claimed that they were ‘small
farmers’ and sought a waiver of loan u/cl.5 of the scheme. Bank
declined to accede to the claim for waiver. The appellants filed
a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum. The District Forum held that the appellants were in the
category of small farmers and the entire outstanding loan amount
was waived. The State Commission agreed with the view of the
District Forum. However, the National Commission came to a
contrary conclusion and denied complete a waiver of loan.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. For the purpose of the present case, Clause 3.6
of the scheme which defines the expression ‘small farmer’ is
relevant. A small farmer is a farmer cultivating agricultural land
of more than 1 hectare and upto 2 hectares (5 acres). The
expression ‘other farmer’ covers those farmer whose holding
is in excess of five acres. Where a borrowing is by more than
one farmer all of whom have pooled their land, explanation 2
provides that the largest landholding in the pool shall be the
basis for the classification of all farmers in that pool as marginal,
small or other farmers. This explanation indicates that where
both the appellants have pooled their landholding for the purpose
of loan, the largest landholding amongst them would be taken
into consideration for classifying them in the appropriate
category. The District Forum carefully evaluated this aspect and
came to the conclusion that the largest of the landholdings of
the two appellants was four acres six kanals and eleven marlas
and, hence both the appellants would fall in the category of ‘small
farmer’ and not in the category of ‘other farmer’. This finding is
in terms of the provisions and is correct. The State Commission
has also entered a similar finding. [Para 15] [41-G-H; 42-A-C]
2. The appellants claimed a debt waiver on the ground that
they were small farmers. The entire eligible amount was liable
to be waived in terms of Clause 5. The National Commission
proceeded on the basis that the Scheme was applicable only to
certain districts in the State of Haryana and since Faridabad is
SATPAL AND ANR. v. BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
not a district listed in Annexure-I, the appellants w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.