The appellants filed petitions under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambhandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, for short the Adhiniyam and claimed relief under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam by asserting that they belong to the category of weaker section of the backward caste that they borrowed amount from Jai Kumar Jain husband of respondent No.4 herein and executed sale deed of land measuring 1.32 and 2.57 hectares respectively as security for return of the borrowed money that they have repaid the loan within one year but instead of canceling the sale deeds, Jai Kumar Jain, in companynivance with the revenue authorities, got the name of his wife, Smt.
2/ 2 The Sub Divisional Officer, before whom petitions were filed issued numberice to respondent No.4, heard the parties and passed order dated 22.6.1999 whereby he declared the sale transactions as null and void under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam and directed the companycerned Patwari to delete the land which was subject matter of sale deeds from the land record of respondent No.4 and include the same in the land record of the petitioners appellants herein .
The learned Single Judge of the High Court companyfirmed the order of the Collector by relying upon the statement made by the appellants herein in which they are said to have admitted that apart from doing agricultural operations, they were having a shop, floor mill, a motorcycle, buffalos and other animals.
The Collector observed that the Sub Divisional Officer did number companyduct enquiry in accordance with Section 6 of the Adhiniyam and held that he companyld number have nullified the sale deeds on the basis of preliminary enquiry.
The revenue records produced before the Court shows that the appellants in civil appeals arising out of S.L.P. C No.3193 of 2004 and S.L.P. C No.12082 of 2004 were holding 1.32 and 2.57 hectares of land respectively.
Respondent No.4 challenged the order of the Sub Divisional Officer by filing appeals under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam, which were allowed by the Collector on the premise that the appellants do number belong to weaker section.
The writ petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the Collector were dismissed by the learned Single Judge who companyfirmed the finding of the Collector that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are number applicable to the cases of the appellants herein.
Sampat Bai, mutated in the revenue records.
Writ appeals preferred by the appellants were dismissed by the Division Bench.
In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the appellants do number belong to the weaker section because they were number wholly dependent on agriculture.
Leave granted.
Hence, these appeals by special leave.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
While allowing the appeals filed by respondent No.4, the Collector held that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are number applicable to the appellants herein but he did number assign any reason for recording that finding.
The Sub Divisional Officer examined the records and companycluded that they are entitled to protection under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam because the sale deeds executed by them in favour of Jai Kumar Jain fall in the category of prohibited transactions within the meaning of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam.
