The court found that the learned Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by making unsupported findings, necessitating a remand for reevaluation of the land confiscation under Section 118.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal seeks consideration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2335 of 2009, decided on 23.08.2018 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed. In effect, dismissal of the writ petition led to the orders passed by the Statutory Authorities while exercising their powers under Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as amended from time time, being upheld whereby the Collector, Solan District Solan, vide order dated 07.05.2006 (Annexure P-6) held that the land measuring 03 bighas on khasra No. 744/238/2 in Mauja Barog Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. had been confiscated to the State of HP along with building constructed thereon free from all encumbrances.

2. The said order had also been upheld in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 06.09.2008 (Annexure P-8) and the appeal was also unsuccessful before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 02.06.2009 (Annexure P-10) which had led to the filing of the writ petition.

3. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to uphold the said order was that there was an agreement as such on record dated 17.09.1998 (Ext. RW1/A), on the basis of which possession had been transferred without valid permission being granted, though there was evidence to show that the possession was still being retained by the writ petitioner in favour of non-agriculturist-respondent No.3. It was accordingly held that water and electricity connection did not show the same in favour of respondent No. 3. However, son of the said respondent was monitoring the construction work and therefore, it was deemed fit to conclude that presumption of truth was assignable to the entries borne in the relevant revenue record and that Roshan Lal was owner in possession of the property. As such there was violation of statutory provisions under Section 118 of the Act and therefore, it could not be said not to be justified for quashing the action of the said authorities.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings as such recorded by the learned Single Judge are not justified and are against the record. The learned Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction as such to come to the said conclusion even though the authorities had not held so. It was further argued that on an earlier occasion there was a civil suit decreed in favour of the present appellant on 24.08.1999 (Annexure P-1) wherein it had been held that the notice issued to the land owner as such under the said provision was not justified and decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from causing any interference and further from ejecting or dispossessing the plaintiff in pursuance of the notices issued. The State had been unsuccessful in appeal on 05.09.2000 (Annexure P-2) and therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, further notice dated 19.05.2000 (Annexure P-4) was not justified. It was further argued that the construction even if raised was on the smaller portion of the land and therefore, confiscation and vesting of three bighas of the land was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the orders passed by the authorities are justified and liable to be upheld and it would be loathe to interfere in appeal the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. A perusal of the writ paper book would indicate that apparently an agreement was made on 17.07.1998 (Annexure P-3) between writ petitioner Roshan Lal and Pritpal Singh whereby respondent No. 3 now deceased had agreed that the said respondent would purchase three biswas of land situated in village Barog falling in khasra No. 238 for a consideration of rupees four lacs. The necessary sale consideration was rupees four lacs, out of which only two lacs had been paid as earnest money and agreement was subject to grant of permission in