ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS, FC. - This revision petition preferred by Sh. Ashok Madan, petitioner, is directed against the order dated 24.6.1996 in Revenue Appeal No. 223/95 passed by the Commissioner Shimla Division whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of Distt. Collector Shimla dated 21.12.1995 was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla (Rural), reported on 8.7.1994 to the Distt. Collector Shimla that the present petitioner Sh. Ashok Madan had acquired 0-14 Biswas of land comprising Khasra No. 2429/2148/302 situated in Mauza Patti Rihana Tehsil Shimla from one Sh. Tara Chand, the present respondent No. 2 through the General Power of Attorney dated 27.7.1992, collaboration agreement dated 29.6.1992 and partnership deed dated 1.4.1993 and sale deed dated 21.12.1993, and had constructed 8 stored building in the name of Firm called M/s. A.K. t Madan Enterprises on the land illegally in violation of Section 118(1) of I H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, as the said Firm was not I agriculturist, within the State of H.P.

3. The learned District Collector Shimla after proceeding in the matter, hearing the parties and examination of record held that the present petitioner Shri Ashok Madan had acquired the land in violation of the provisions of Section 118(1) of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, and accordingly ordered vestment of the land in the State of H.P. free from all encumbrances together with structures building or other attachments if any, vide order dated 21.11.1995.

4. Against this order of the District Collector Shimla dated 21.11.1995, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla Division on the grounds that the order of the District Collector Shimla was a premature and without jurisdiction because of the fact that the matter was under inquiry with the! Commission on Environment Protection and Benami Transaction. It was also pointed out that venders of 24 flats in the building were necessary parties, and had not been implead as parties in the case and that the repot of the Tehsildar which was not based on facts should not have been accepted and that the present petitioner had only made the partnership deed and collaboration agreement to carry out the construction as a contractor and builder, which did not warrant an inference that the sale of land to non-agriculturist in violation of Section 118 of the Act had taken place.

5. The learned Commissioner Shimla Division after hearing both the parties and going through the case records dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.6.1996, and upheld the orders of the District Collector Shimla. Hence the present revision petition.

6. The records were summoned and the parties were afforded sufficient opportunity to address their arguments in this Court.

7. The learned Counsel for petitioner and respondent No. 2 contended that the impugned orders are against law and facts as the various purchasers of the apartments built on the land in question have not been associated with the proceedings and thus they have been condemned unheard.

8. The learned District Attorney (Revenue) argued that this contention of the petitioners lacks any force as the transactions that have taken place subsequently will not affect the merit of the original transaction which is vitiated as being violative of Section 118 of the Act.

9. The plea of the petitioner to implead the purchasers of the flats as party to these proceedings appears to have been taken only to prolong the proceedings. The petitioner cannot object the proceedings by espousing the cause of a third party. The transfer of apartment to third parties by petitioner or respondent No. 2 is a subsequent transaction which has no bearing on the validity of the first transaction impugned in these proceedings and the purchasers are either indemnified by implied contract and caveat emptor. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner is without merit.

10.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document