Vesting under Section 118(2) H.P. Tenancy Act requires conscious default or negligence; bona fide steps like project agreements, road construction amid economic recession constitute reasons beyond control, preventing automatic land forfeiture.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Notice. Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent.

2. The Case
Learned District Collector, Solan on 20.01.2017 ordered vestment of respondent’s/petitioner’s land with the State government on the ground that the respondent failed to put the land to use within two years from the date of execution of sale deed, the respondent could not start construction of the resort over land in question within two years in accordance with the permission granted to it under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The operative portion of the order passed by the learned District Collector, Solan ordering vesting of respondent's land with the petitioner is as under:-

“17. In this case, Respondent purchased 150 bigha land and then did not put it to use for which it was purchased even after 7 years after the Sale Deed. The record available on the case file shows clearly that the Respondent did not do anything to set up the resort within the stipulated period of two years from the date of Sale Deed. He did not even apply for further extension one year after the expiry of two years’ time limit. His plea that he could not start the construction due to economic recession is too general and vague in the absence of specific documentary evidence. There is nothing specific on record that the Respondent was prevented from starting the construction because of economic downturn. It is evident that the failure of Respondent is due to his own acts of commission and omission. As has been pointed out by the Hon’ble High Court in Judgment delivered in the case titled Som Kirti versus State of H.P. quoted above the intention of Act is prevent land grab by moneyed people. By not putting the land to use for which permission was granted the Respondent has blocked the land from being used for any other gainful purpose. Therefore this is a clear case of violation of Section 118 of the Act. I answer this point in affirmative and hold it in favour of the State.
18. On the basis of the discussion above, it is clear that the respondent has violated the provision contained in the Act. Therefore, land measuring 150-00 bigha, located in revenue Village Rahed, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan and comprised in Khewat No.54 min, Khatauni No.79 and Khewat No.55, Khatauni No.81, Khasra Nos. 1030/697, 1035/696, 1036/696 purchased vide Sale Deed No.80/2008 dated 18.03.2008 shall vest with the State of Himachal Praedesh free from all encumbrances as provided in the Act. Copy of this Order be sent to the SDO (C), Kandaghat and the Tehsildar, Kandaghat for information and compliance. No order as to the cost. File after due completion be consigned to the General Record Room.”

Statutory appeal preferred by the respondent against the above order was allowed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, H.P. on 21.12.2017. While allowing the appeal, learned Divisional Commissioner relied upon Ravinder Chauhan and others versus State of H.P. , AIR 1999 HP 43 as also Sanjay Dutt versus State through CBI , 1994 (5) SCC 410 and Tola Ram Relumal versus State of Bombay , AIR 1954 SCC 496. Learned Divisional Commissioner interpreted the provisions of Section 118(2) of the Act and returned the findings that default on the part of the respondent in raising the construction of resort over the land in question within stipulated period of two years in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be considered as “conscious default, negligence or refusal”. Operative portion from the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner is a