IMPORTANT POINT
The finality of a judgment and decree, the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the Indian Evidence Act were crucial in establishing the respondent's status as an agriculturist and the legality of the land purchases.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein purchased 10 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.958/2/1 and 958/3/1, kita-2, area measuring 2-9 bighas, but since on the basis of sale deed executed at that relevant time, entries were not being made in the revenue record, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein filed civil suit No.4/1/2011, titled as Sudershan Bhatia vs. Om Dutt alias Uma Dutt and others, seeking therein declaration that she is owner in possession of the suit land, as detailed hereinabove. Aforesaid suit came to be partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, Shimla, H.P. Since aforesaid judgment and decree never came to be laid challenge in the superior court of law, same attained finality and ultimately on the basis of the same, land in question, came to be mutated in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein vide mutation No.54, attested on 6.10.2015. On the basis of aforesaid entries in the revenue record, predecessor-in-interest and thereafter, respondent herein came to be declared as agriculturist in the State of Himachal Pradesh. After being declared as agriculturist in the State of H.P., respondent herein purchased some land in District Sirmour and Solan respectively, but Deputy Commissioner, Solan to ascertain correctness of the agriculture certificate adduced on record by the respondent herein, made a communication to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla because suit land, which was subject the matter of the civil suit, as detailed hereinabove, was purchased by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein in District Shimla. In the aforesaid background, District Collector, Shimla, initiated proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act’) against the respondent herein for vestment of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.40/40, Khasra No.230/193/1, Kita 1, area measuring 11-12 bighas & Khata/Khatauni No.41/41, Khasra Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Kita-6, measuring 11-8 bigha, situate in Mauja Sabowal, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., on the ground that sale deed was executed on the basis of fraudulent agriculturist certificate.

2. Learned District Collector, Shimla after having heard the parties and perused the material available on record vide order dated 16.06.2016 passed in case No.04/13 of 2010 ordered vestment of the land detailed hereinabove in favour of the State.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order of vestment passed by District Collector, Shimla, respondent herein filed an appeal No.583 of 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla. However, fact remains that Divisional Commissioner, Shimla vide order dated 19.11.2018 dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid background, respondent herein approached Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Shimla by way of Revision Petition No.46 of 2019, which ultimately came to be allowed vide order dated 28.2.2020. In the instant proceedings, petitioner-State has laid challenge to aforesaid order dated 28.2.2020.

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner-State as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, is that Financial Commissioner(Appeals)m while passing the impugned order dated 28.2.2020, has failed to appreciate the facts as well as documentary evidence adduced on record by the Department suggestive of the fact that land was purchased by predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein on the basis of fraudulent agriculture certificate. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that classification of land claimed to be purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein is “Ghasni” and since it was not under cultivation, the status of agriculturist otherwise could not have been claimed on the basis of such lan