IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14650/2026 Decided on: 26.08.2026 Natural Bio-Products Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Ajinder Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The case set up by the petitioner is that it had purchased land measuring 7-19 bighas at Ramshahr, District Solan, H.P. after obtaining permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (the Act, in short), for the purpose of establishing an industrial unit in the year 2004, vide Sale Deed No. 1143/2005, executed on 18.08.2005. On account of several reasons, the proposed industrial project, for setting up of which the permission was granted to the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 company under Section 118 of the Act to purchase the land, could not be set up. Proceedings under Section 118 of the Act were accordingly initiated against the petitioner. Vide order dated 07.03.2009, the land was vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of its non-utilization for the sanctioned industrial purpose. Pursuant thereto, possession of the land in question was also taken over by the State. The case of the petitioner is that it was not aware of the passing of the vestment order. The same came to its notice vide official letter dated 23.03.2026, which was issued in response to petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025. In the said representation, the petitioner had requested restoration/re- allotment of the land vested in the Government to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Directors of petitioner company are bona fide Himachali agriculturists by birth and also permanent residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh. They, therefore, are legally entitled to own the land in their individual capacity without requiring permission under Section 118 of the Act. With the above contentions, this writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the orders dated 16.02.2009 vide Case No. 2/13 of 2009, Order No. 248, dated 07.03.2009 and 3 order dated 01.11.2011 as well as letter dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) and letter dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure P-5). ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to restore/re-allot the land i.e. Khata/Khatauni No. 28/28, bearing Khasra No. 23, measuring 7- 19 bighas, situated at Mauza Ner, Pargana Rampur, Sub-Tehsil Ramshahr, District Solan, H.P., to the petitioner in individual capacity as bonafide Himachali which has been vested in the Government, on any conditions, which may be imposed by the Government including payment of nominal charges.” 2. The writ petition is wholly misconceived. Admittedly, the land was purchased by the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, after obtaining permission from the State Government under Section 118 of the Act for the purpose of establishing an industrial unit in the year 2004. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the industrial unit could not be set up by it, and therefore, on 07.03.2009, the land was ordered to be vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, possession of the land was also taken over by the State Government. The writ petition has been filed by the company, which has a distinct identity from that of its Directors, and prayer has been made for reverting back the land in question in favour of the Directors, who are not the petitioners themself. Even otherwise, the State had permitted the land in question to be purchased by petitioner company by granting permission under Section 118 of the Act and not by the Directors in their individual capacity. Learned counsel for the petitioner could 4 not point out any provision of law under which the land purchased with the permission of the State Government under Section 118 of the Act by a company, after its vestment in the State Government, could be restored back to the Directors of the company on the ground of their being bona-fide Himachali agriculturists & permanent residents of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Though the petitioner has laid challenge to the vesting order also, substantive pleadings in that regard are missing in the writ petition. The vesting order passed by the competent authority has not even been appended with the writ petition. It is not even clear from the record whether the petitioner had invoked the statutory remedy of appeal, etc., as available under the provisions of Section 118 of the Act against the vesting order passed by the Revenue Authority. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 26th August, 2026(rohit)