Judgment:
ORDER
G.M. Lodha, J.
1. This revision incidently raises a very important question of constitutional law also. The petitioners claim that they are marginal farmers and they have produced the certificate issued by Tehsildar, Jhabua certifying that the latter petitioner is a marginal farmer. Jhabua is in Madhya Pradesh on the border of Rajasthan.
2. Both the States, Madhya Pradesh as well as Rajasthan, in consonance with Art. 46 of the Constitution, have enacted various laws for providing protection to poor and down trodden segments of society.
3. One of the legislations in Rajasthan is under the caption 'the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976' enacted for providing liquidation to marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and rural artisans in Rajasthan. The object of the Act was an emergency measure to combat against the increasing indebtedness amongst farmers and down trodden rural masses.
4. In Madhya Pradesh, in 1975 a similar law under the caption 'The Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin Sthagan Adhiniyam (Act No. 32/1975) was enacted for relief from indebtedness to members of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, small and marginal farmers, landless agricultural labourers and rural artisans in rural areas.
5. The Madhya Pradesh Legislature, in Section 2 declared the policy of the State for givingeffect to the policy towards certain principles specified in Art. 46 of the Constitution.
6. The present litigation is going on in Rajasthan in Bhilwara District where the money lender creditor is operating and the defendant hails from Madhya Pradesh, neighbouring State of Rajasthan. Both the Acts define agricultural laws, landless agricultural labourers and marginal farmers. The definition of marginal farmer in Madhya Pradesh is contained in Clause (g) of Section 3 of the Adhiniyam which reads as under :
'Section 3(g) -- 'Marginal farmer' means an agriculturist who,--
(i) in case of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, holds not exceeding one hectare of irrigated or two hectares of unirrigated agricultural land and who cultivates personally such land;
(ii) in case of a person other than a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, holds an agricultural land not exceeding half hectare of irrigated or one hectare of unirrigated land and who cultivates personally such land :'
7. Then there are definitions of 'scheduled debtor' in Clause (j) of Rajasthan Act, 'agricultural labourer' in Clause (a) and 'agriculturist' in Clause (b) of the Rajasthan Act and similarly, Clause (3) of definitions of Madhya Pradesh Law defines 'landless agricultural labourer' in Clause (e), 'agricultural land' in Clause (a), 'Marginal farmer' in Clause (g), 'rural artisan' in Clause (k), etc. Now the Madhya Pradesh law discharges all debts in Clause (a) incurred before the commencement of the act of marginal farmer, landless agricultural labourer and rural artisans. The Rajasthan Act Section 4 discharged the debts of scheduled debtors incurred before the coming into force of the Act. It is not necessary to go into details of these acts but the central theme of both the Acts which is enacted in 1975 in Madhya Pradesh and 1976 in Rajasthan was to discharge the debts of marginal farmers, etc., and thus to emancipate the downtrodden, poor, landless agricultural labourer, small farmers in rural areas from indebtedness.
8. Now a peculiar circumstance has arisen in the present case because there are both the laws provided in this petition andaccording to the Tehsildar, certificate of Jhabua of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner being a marginal farmer is entitled to benefit of the provisions enacted for this purpose but if the impugned order of the lower court of Bhilwara is confirmed, then they would be left high and dry because whereas Rajasthan courts could limit the benefit to Rajasthan marginal farmers only, the Madhya Pradesh courts would be incompetent to entertain the case for want of jurisdiction and provide benefit to the petitioners who are marginal farmers. Undoubtedly, if the certificate is found to be genuine and if no wrong evidence is led or believed, the impugned order of the trial courts takes the view that since this Act is meant only for Rajasthan rural masses, the Madhya Pradesh marginal farmer would not be able to take the benefit of this Act.
9. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the Rajasthan Law would apply to scheduled debtors irrespective of the residence and the agriculturist being in any Slate of India. Firstly, the definition of marginal farmer contained in this Act of 1976 of Rajasthan no way limits or puts feller or saddles that the marginal farmer should be one who holds khatedari land in Rajasthan only. Secondly, the definition of scheduled debtor means an agricultural labourer and marginal farmer and rural artisan, irrespective of the residence or the situation or location of the land. Now, an agricultural labourer is one whose income does not exceed to Rs. 2400/- in agricultural occupations. Here again there is no limit geographically of the place where he should have his income or the agricultural occupation. That being so, primarily there are no limits, riders and fellers that one must be a Rajasthanee or, in order to lake benefit, he must have his agricultural land only in Rajasthan. Obviously, the Madhya Pradesh courts cannot have any jurisdiction and, therefore, if the impugned order is sustained and confirmed, the result would be that there would be discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution between the scheduled debtors, marginal farmers or landless labourers. On the ground of place of residence and the marginal farmer having less land in Jhabua in comparison to the marginal farmer having more land than thosecoming in the limit of marginal farmer in Jhalawar, would be treated differently by the Rajasthan courts under the Rajasthan Law, even though the law has been enacted for giving effect to the policy of Article 46 of the Constitution.
10. Article 46 of the Constitution reads as under: --
'46. The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.'
11. Article 46 in terms contain the mandate and directive of the State policy for promoting educational and economic interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to protect them from social injustice and exploitations. It makes no distinction, discrimination and difference between Jhalawar and Jhabua, Jabalpur or Jodhpur where the marginal farmer or a person of Scheduled Caste or a weaker section resides at one place or the other. The directive is all pervading.
12. It is true that each State, in order to follow the directive of Article 46, makes its laws, but then taking discrimination between the citizens who are being dealt with under this law in that State on the ground that a persoa person belonging to weaker section of the society of other State could not get benefit in litigation, in this State, i.e., the law would not grant licence for exploitation by money lenders of one State of the weaker sections of the society who can come in the category of scheduled-debtors of the other State. If exploitation is prohibited in the same State it is prohibited not from the point of view of the citizens of the State only but from the point of view of the economic conditions of weaker sections, irrespective of their land being in Jhabua or Jhalawar.
13. If the interpretation which the lower court has taken is to be accepted, then the provisions would become violative of the Article 46 of the Constitution, being discriminative and the classification cannotbe justified because a person belonging to weaker section of society for purposes of Article 46 or for purposes of these Acts, being an agricultural labourer or a marginal farmer or a rural artisan or an agriculturalist would be a scheduled debtor whose debts are to be wiped out or other benefits are to be given. Once he proves that he comes in that category, and it is immaterial whether the land is in Jhabua or at Jhalawar.
14. To deny a Jhabua's marginal farmer the benefit of this social welfare legislation in Rajasthan and similarly to deny a Jhalawar fanner of the same rights and benefit in Jabalpur or Madhya Pradesh on the ground that he belongs to Jhalawar and, therefore, even though he is a marginal farmer or a rural artisan or an agricultural labourer who can come in the category of scheduled debtor in Rajasthan's laws or a landless agricultural labourer or a marginal farmer or a rural artisan for purposes of Section 4 of Madhya Pradesh laws, still the courts are helpless because the law enacted by the legislature is to be for the benefit of the persons of that State only, even though the courts are enforcing the law in that State.
15. The fundamental right of equality before law or equal protection under laws within the territory of India enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution warrants that no law should be allowed to discriminate on the ground of the place or race.
16. In my opinion, while interpreting the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976, it cannot be lost sight of that the interpretation should be such which is in consonance with the fundamental rights and directive principles and is not violative of it. The object to provide, liquidation of indebtedness is wide enough to cover and merely because the preamble says in Rajasthan, it cannot mean that only of the rural population of Rajasthan and not of Madhya Pradesh or other States. It would, therefore, interpret these provisions to make them harmonious to the directive principles of Article 46 of the Constitution and further to be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. So interpreted, 1 hold that this Act ofRajasthan, whenever it is interpreted or applied in the Courts of Rajasthan for the purposes of giving effect to the objects of the Act, would provide protection and benefit to all scheduled debtors who can legitimately prove that their case comes in that category even though their land may be situated in some other State so long as litigation is being conducted in the Courts of Rajasthan.
17. The Constitutional mandate of Article 46 read with Article 14 is universally applicable for Indian Union from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari and Kutch to Calcutta. It is the clarion call for equality before law which in terms inspires unity and integrity of the people, irrespective of place of birth or residence. This act of liquidation of debts of marginal farmers, who are poor and downtrodden and who have been suppressed, oppressed and repressed and consequently depressed on account of centuries of exploitation by landlords on the one hand and rich money lenders and creditors on the other hand, is to emancipate and release them from the above exploitation. It would, therefore, be not material to the economic status of the Indian citizen of marginal farmer as to which part of the country he resides, as the Rajasthan laws would liquidate his debts the moment they become subject matter of litigation of Rajasthan courts.
18. Thus interpreted, Jhabua's marginal farmer who has got the certificate of Tehsildar would be entitled to the protection of the Rajasthan Act of 1975, known as the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976. Thus, the revision application is accepted, the case is remanded to the lower court to proceed according to law, after giving opportunity to prove and disprove the relevant facts involved in the issue whether the defendants or any one of the defendants is a marginal farmer.
19. The parties should bear their own costs.