1993 (10) TMI 371 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977 regarding the definition of 'small farmer' and 'person' under Section 3.

The judgment in question pertains to an appeal against the High Court of Andhra Pradesh's decision regarding the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977. The Act aims to provide relief to agricultural laborers, rural artisans, and small farmers in the state. The dispute revolves around the definition of 'small farmer' and 'person' under Section 3 of the Act. The High Court's ruling favored the judgment-debtor, a woman who owned and cultivated wet land, by considering only her individual holding for relief eligibility. The appellant, the decree holder, challenged this view, arguing that the individual should be construed interchangeably with the family under Section 3(p). However, the High Court held that the relief was intended for the agriculturist individually, not the entire family, and upheld the judgment-debtor's entitlement to relief. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing the Act's purpose and the local conditions, and dismissed the appeal without costs.

The key issue addressed in the judgment is the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, specifically regarding the definition of 'small farmer' and 'person' under Section 3. The Act aims to provide relief to agricultural laborers, rural artisans, and small farmers in the state. The dispute arose from the High Court's decision to consider only the individual holding of the judgment-debtor, a woman who owned and cultivated wet land, for relief eligibility under the Act. The appellant contended that the term 'person' in Section 3(p) should be read interchangeably with the family, thereby including the holdings of minor children in determining eligibility. However, the High Court ruled that the relief was meant for the individual agriculturist, not the entire family, and granted relief to the judgment-debtor based solely on her holding. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing the Act's purpose to provide relief to agriculturists and the local conditions influencing the decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

The judgment delves into the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1977, focusing on the definitions of 'small farmer' and 'person' under Section 3 of the Act. The Act aims to offer relief to agricultural laborers, rural artisans, and small farmers in Andhra Pradesh. The dispute arose from the High Court's decision to consider only the individual holding of the judgment-debtor, a woman who owned and personally cultivated wet land, for relief eligibility. The appellant argued that the term 'person' in Section 3(p) should encompass the family, including the holdings of minor children, in determining eligibility. However, the High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the relief was intended for the individual agriculturist and not the entire family. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's interpretation, highlighting the Act's purpose and the importance of local interpretative skills. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.