2018:HHC:5804 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2335 of 2009 Decided on: 04.11.2025 Sh. Roshan Lal (since deceased) through Legal Representatives Smt. Sirki Devi and others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) prayed for the following relief:- “The entire proceedings with respect to the impugned notice Annexure:P-4 may be set aside while quashing the order dated 7.5.2005 in case No.31/13 of 2000 (Annexure:P-6), order dated 6.9.2008 in Rev. Appeal No.301/2005 (Annexure:P-8) and order dated 2.6.2009 (Annexure:P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). H.P. in Revision Petition No.107/08. Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent No.1. in the interest of justice.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2018:HHC:5804 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the statutory Authorities, in terms whereof, proceedings stood initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act to the effect that the property, subject matter of the writ petition, was sold by the petitioner to one Pritpal Singh Bindra, in violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, as Pritpal Singh Bindra being a non- agriculturist, could not have purchased any agricultural land in the State of Himachal Pradesh without the permission of the Government and after holding the petitioner guilty of violation of the provisions of the said Act, the land and building has been directed to be vested in the State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the record and more so through the initial notice which is on record as Annexure P-4 and submitted that a perusal of the said notice would demonstrate that the allegation contained therein was to the effect that the petitioner and Shri Sat Raj Singh had sold their land measuring 0-3 biswas in Khasra No. 744/238/2 in mauja Barog, District Solan, to one Mr. Bindra, who was a non-agriculturist without the permission of the Government, upon which, a two storeyed structure stood constructed. He submitted that on these 3 2018:HHC:5804 allegations, the impugned orders have been passed by the Authorities against the petitioner to the effect that the land alongwith structures shall stand vested in the Government. 4. Learned Counsel submitted that despite the fact that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that indeed the land was sold by the petitioner (now deceased, who is being represented through his legal representatives) to said Shri Bindra, the impugned orders stand passed. He submitted that a perusal of the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner demonstrates that though this fact was conceded by the Authority that the State could not demonstrate that there was any sale of the land in favour of Mr. Pritpal Singh Bindra or that there was any material on record from which it could be inferred that the property was constructed out of the funds which were made available by Mr. Bindra, yet, the impugned orders have been passed. Accordingly, he prayed that this petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as it stood proved on record that three biswas of land was sold out by the petitioner, to one Mr. Pritpal Singh Bindra, without any permission from the Government, upon which thereafter, Mr. Bindra constructed two storeyed structure from his own 4 2018:HHC:5804 investment, there is no infirmity in the orders under challenge because there indeed is a flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Accordingly, he prayed that present petition being devoid of merit be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have carefully gone through the impugned orders and other documents appended on record. 7. A perusal of Annexure P-4 demonstrates that foundation of the proceedings which were initiated against the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners and one Shri Sat Raj Singh was that three biswas of land which was owned by them, stood sold by them to Mr. Pritpal Singh Bindra, who was a non-agriculturist, without the permission of the Government as required under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, upon which, Mr. Bindra constructed a two storeyed structure. However, a perusal of the orders passed by the Authorities in the proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 and subsequent proceedings demonstrates that in the said orders, it has been observed that neither the factum of sale of the property by way of any sale deed by the owners of the land to Mr. Bindra could be proved nor 5 2018:HHC:5804 it could be demonstrated that indeed the structure that was constructed upon said land was funded by Mr. Bindra. 8. Faced with this situation, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that even if it is to be taken that as per record, it could not be proved that that indeed there was any sale deed entered into between the owners of the land and Mr. Bindra, yet, the very factum that the land in issue was allowed to be used by Mr. Bindra by true owners itself is a violation of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 9. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the State could not prove that any sale deed was executed between the owners of the land and Mr. Bindra, now the State cannot be allowed to take a different stand because this was not the foundation of the case which was built up by the State against the owner of the land. Therefore, obviously as the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law because the allegations in the proceedings initiated against the owners of the land, were not substantiated on record by placing any material to prove that indeed there was any sale deed executed between the owner of the land and Mr. Bindra. Accordingly, as prayed for, this petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders but with liberty to the State to 6 2018:HHC:5804 proceed against the owners of the land, in accordance with law, in terms of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, if so advised. This, of course, is subject to all just objections and it should not be construed that this Court has given any observation that there was any transaction between the owners of the land and Mr. Pritpal Singh Bindra, in violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 04, 2025 (narender)