N.Maharani Vs The Joint Registrar

3.The President / Secretary, M.D.Autonomous-190 Lakshminaickenpatti, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Lakshminaickenpatti, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

¶13

... Respondents / Respondents

¶14

1/5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.A(MD) No.1967 of 2025

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 03.12.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No. 20855 of 2016 by allowing the appeal.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondent : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

The appellant had availed loan from the third respondent Co-operative Credit Society. The appellant wanted benefit of the loan waiver scheme introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The scheme stipulated that the land holding of the borrower should be below 5 acres. According to the department, since the appellant owns more than 5 acres of land, she was denied the benefit of loan waiver. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 03.12.2024 in the following terms:-

¶23

“3. On the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader by relying upon a proceedings initiated under Section 90

¶24

2/5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.A(MD) No.1967 of 2025

¶27

of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, had contended that the petitioner owns nearly about 5.48 acres of land under various patta numbers issued by the Revenue Authorities.

¶28

The said statement had not been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

In view that the petitioner owns more than 5 acres of land, he is not entitled for the benefit of G.O.(Ms) No.50, Co operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CC1) Department, dated 23.05.2016 and G.O.(Ms) No.59, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CC1) Department, dated 28.06.2016 and therefore, no interference is required to be made in the impugned order and accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.”

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal came to be filed.

¶31

Before us, the learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated that the appellant owns more than 5 acres of land. Necessary documents have also been produced to that effect. It is interesting to note that the appellant is a cardamom farmer. The learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. Interference with the said order is not called for.

¶32