The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of the exemption clause for village artisans under Section 118(2)(C) of the Act and the significance of residency and ancestral profession in determining eligibility to purchase land in Himachal Pradesh.

ORDER :

1. The revision petition has been preferred under Section 118(3-C) of the H P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order dated 6.7.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Shimla Division in Case No. 181/2006, confirming the order dated 29.7 2006, passed by the District Collector, Solan in case No.55/13 of 1999, who ordered to vest the and in question along with the structure standing thereon, if any, in the State of H.P. for reasons of contravention of Section 118 of the Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Tehsildar Kandaghat, reported that Shri Duni Chand predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and proforma respondents, were non-Himachali and non-agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh, and have purchased land comprised in khasra no.223 and 224, measuring 1-6 bighas situated in mauza Silhari, Pargna Bagri Khurd, Tehsil Kandaghat, through a registered sale deed no. 109 dated 29.11 1982 in violation of section 118 of the H P Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, by securing a certificate of village carpenter under the garb of exemption granted to village artisan under section 118(2)(C) of the Act ibid. Since the exemption granted to the village artisan under section 118(2)(C) of the Act, is only to the Himachalis whose ancestral profession is of village artisan and who are mainly dependent on this profession as a source of their livelihood. The exemption clause is not meant for persons who are not bona fide residents of H P.. That certain persons mange to obtain certificate through dubious means to circumvent the provisions of Section 118 of the Act. Shri Duni Chand was not a bona fide resident of H P. and was also Proforma not a village artisan by profession at the time when he purchased the land described above.

3. It was also reported that subsequent to the purchase, his wife Smt. Dyaloo Devi, present petitioner, also purchased land comprised in khasra no.294, 295, 296, 330 and 331. measuring 2-11 bighas through registered sale deed no.53 dated 4.7.1985 and land comprised in khasra no.290,292,302,305,314,322 and 333, measuring 5-3 bighas and khasra no 291,232 measuring 0-14 biswas vide sale deed no.54 dated 4.7.1985, and khasra no.304, 321, 281, 315, 301, measuring 2-9 bighas vide sale deed No.55 dated 4.7 1985 and vide sale deed no.60 dated 30.7.1985, land comprised in khasra no. 297, 303, 306, 313, 317, 319, 327, 329 measuring 7-4 bighas, situated in Mauza Balola, Pargna Bagri Kurd, Tehsil Kandaghat ,Distt. Solan on the basis of purchase of land by her husband (Duni Chand) in village Selhari, which are also in violation of section 118 of the Act After affording due opportunities of being heard to the parties and recording the statements and perusal of the documents produced, the learned Collector, Solan, vide order dated 29.7.2006, passed in case no.55/13 of 1999,ordered to vest the above stated land in the State of H P. along with structure thereon, if any, free from all encumbrances, as all the above sale deeds have been registered in contravention of H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, in the name of such persons who were not legally entitled/eligible to purchase land in Himachal Pradesh.

4. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the present petitioner Smt. Dyaloo Devi filed an appeal before the commissioner, Shimla Division on the grounds that the Collector, Kandaghat had already passed order in case no. 1/V111/89,which had not been assailed by the Government that they were eligible to purchase land. That on the issue of false certificate furnished by them, the criminal proceedings against them have already been dropped. After hearing the parties and only perusal of the record the learned Commissioner vide the impugned order held that neither the appellant nor her predecessor-in-interest were entitled to seek exemption under section 118(20(C) of the Act, for purchase of agricultural and in Himachal Pradesh, and rejected the appeal upholding the vestment order