High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
D.RAJU,KAMLESH SHARMA
RAVINDER CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 254 of 1995
Decided On : 09/18/1998
D.Raju, C J.: The above writ petition has been filed by six persons joining together claiming to be the owner and permanent residents of the locality situated at Khalini, Shimla seeking for the following reliefs: "(i) That the land bearing Khata Khatauni No.152/190, Khasra Nos. 862/18 8/10 (New Khasra No. 943) measuring 43 5.5 square yards situated in Mauza Khalini, Chhotta Shimla ward, may be declared to have vested in Government under the provision of Section. 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. (ii) That the respondents No. 1 to 4 may be directed to use the above piece of land as a Children Park or Green Park by raising appropriate trees/flowers over the said piece of land and the same may be permitted to be used by the General Public. (iii) That the respondents No.l to 4 and 6 and 7 may be directed to remove the constructions, if any raised on the said piece of land after the illegal sanction given by respondents No.2 and 3 for the construction of residential house. (iv) That in case this Honble Court deems it necessary that some finding of fact is required to be recorded by the respondent No.5 till the time of vesting of the land in question in favour of the Government, in such a situation the respondent No.5 may be directed to enquire into the facts up to stage when in view of Section 118 the land automatically vests in the Government. (v) That the ex-post-facto sanction granted by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No.6 vide letter dated 8.2.1995 (Annexure P-12) may be quashed and set aside. (vi) That the sanction dated 27.4.1994 (Annexure P-3) granted by respondent No.3 and sanction dated 26.10.1993 (Annexure P-2) granted by respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside. (vii) That order dated 7.3.1995 (Annexure P. 13) may be quashed."
2. The land comprising in Khasra No. 8 62/18 8/10 was said to have been earlier owned and possessed by one Smt. Sarita Parsad wife of Shri Ajay Parsad and that respondent No. 6 Dr .R. S. Santoshi applied for permission to purchase the aforesaid land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 152/190 Khasra No. 862/188/10 measuring 435.5 sq. yards corresponding to new Khasra No.943 as per Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid. By its proceeding dated 28.11.1989, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Department, accorded sanction in exercise of the powers under Clause (i) of Sub Section (2) of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and clause (d) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 3 8-A of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to purchase the land measuring 435.5 Sq. yards in Khasra No. 862/188/10 situated in Station Ward, Shimla-2 by M/s Himachal Sewa Printing Press from Smt. Sarita Parshad wife of Shri Ajay Parshad for setting up printing industry. The sanction was said to -be valid for 180 days from the date of issue and subject to the following conditions : "(i) The land shall be utilised for the purpose for which it has been sanctioned. (ii) In the jamabandi it shall be noted, in red ink, in the remarks column that the above vendor shall not in future be entitled to any allotment/grant/lease of land from the Government. (iii) This sanction or the purchase of land thereunder shall not vest a right of an agriculturist on the purchaser who shall continue to be a non-agriculturist"
3. Thereafter under sale deed dated 3.1.1990, the 6th respondent purchased the property According to the petitioners, the second proviso to sub Section (2) of Section 118 of the Act contemplates that the non-agriculturist, who has been given permission by the Government shall put the land to such use for which the permission has been granted within a period of two years or further such period not exceeding one year, as may be granted by the State Government, to be counted from the day on which the deed covering the sale of the land was registered and on failure to do so, the land so pu
1. S.B. Patwardhan ft Anr. v. State of Maharashtra ft Ors
3. Govind Prasad v. R.G. Parsad & Ors. (1994) 1 S.C.C. 437.
4. Indian Nut Products & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
6. Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate
7. Union of India & Ors. v. Somasundaram Viswanath & Ors.
9. Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner
10. Paradise Printers & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ons
12. Tolaram Reluman & Anr. v. The State of Bombay
13. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Andhra Provincial Potteries Ltd. & Ors
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.