2025:HHC:6773 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8644 of 2024 Decided on: 20.03.2025 Majestic Industries … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondents No. 1 to 6-State. : Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate for respondent No. 7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the following relief(s) may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give effect to the orders passed by the BIFR and as a consequence enter the name of the petitioner company qua the land comprised in Khata No. 91, Kahatuni No. 92, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6773 Khasra No 169 measuring 12-07 bigha situated at Village Burawala. Barotiwala, Baddi District Solan, Himachal Pradesh; 2. There is a very short controversy involved in this writ petition. Record demonstrates that a sale deed was executed between the petitioner and the proforma respondent, copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure P-5, dated 27.05.2009. The petitioner- Company had gone sick and in this backdrop it approached the Board for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). In the light of the factum of the petitioner-Company having gone sick, BIFR in terms of order Annexure P-6, dated 28.09.2010 held that the sale executed by the petitioner with the private respondent qua the property belonging to the petitioner-Company was bad in law and the same was declared as null and void. It is not in dispute that this order has attained finality. 3. The grievance of the petitioner-Company that despite the fact that the sale deed executed between the petitioner and the private respondent has been declared to be bad in law by the BIFR, yet, necessary corrections in the revenue record are not being incorporated by the revenue authorities. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Company has taken the Court through relevant documents and has 3 2025:HHC:6773 submitted that in light of the fact that the sale deed in issue was entered into between the petitioner and the private respondent and the same having been declared as null and void, now in the revenue record, the property is to be reflected in the name of the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 and on the strength of said reply, he submitted that as the proceedings stand initiated against respondent No. 7 to the effect that he has violated the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in the course of purchase of the property and as the same is still pending before the appropriate Authority, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the proforma respondent has submitted that though it is not in dispute that the sale deed has been held to be bad by the BIFR, however, said respondent is entitled for the refund of the sale amount. 7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel for the private respondent, this Court is of the considered view that now as the sale deed in issue has been held to be void by the BIFR, therefore, the situation as it exists today is as it was before the execution of the sale deed. In other words, status quo 4 2025:HHC:6773 ante as it existed in the revenue records before the execution of the sale deed has to be maintained. Simply because respondent-State is proceeding against the proforma respondent under the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the incorporation of revenue entries in favour of the petitioner in the revenue record cannot be denied. This Court otherwise has its reservation about the fate of the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act for the reason that as the sale deed itself has been held as void by the BIFR, therefore, as of today, there is no sale actually in favour of the private respondent. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Authorities are directed to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue record reflecting the petitioner-Company to be the owner in possession of the property, subject matter of the sale deed Annexure P-5, dated 27.05.2009. 9. As far as contention of Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 that said respondent is entitled for refund of sale amount is concerned, though this Court is not making any observation in this regard but learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the revenue entries stand reflected in the name of the petitioner-Company, the sale amount 5 2025:HHC:6773 shall be refunded to the private respondent. Revenue Authorities are directed to ensure that all necessary corrections in the revenue record in favour of the petitioner-Company within a period of four weeks from today. 10. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that this order should be without prejudice to the proceedings which are pending before the authorities under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 20, 2025 (narender)