SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
M/s Springdale Resorts And Villas Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh And Others - Respondents
CWP No.3363 of 2025
Decided On : 26-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General.

‘Put land to use’ under land transfer proviso means initiating project with cogent steps like development permissions and site works, not full completion within time limit; prevents automatic vesting without fault adjudication.

Headnote:(A) H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 - Section 118(2)(h) proviso - Transfer of land to non-agriculturist - Condition to “put the land to such use for which the permission has been granted” within two years (extendable by one year) from sale deed registration - Held: Expression requires only cogent, meaningful and effective steps towards project like obtaining development permissions, registering with regulatory authority, commencing site development works (roads, drainage, retaining walls) certified by revenue officer; does not mandate complete project execution, as large projects need multiple permissions; vesting in state not automatic but requires adjudication of conscious default after hearing. (Paras 28-34, 37-39)

(B) Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 - Section 31(b) - Development permission valid for three years - Authority examining plan revision cannot refuse citing expired land purchase permission when development sanction subsists, site put to use and revision sought timely within validity period; limited to approve/reject revision per planning rules. (Paras 20-24)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner obtained permission to purchase land for housing project, executed sale deeds post-delays, secured extensions allegedly till 28.09.2021, obtained development permission on 18.09.2021 valid three years, certified site use with initial works on 24.09.2021, got project registration post-deadline, sought plan revision pre-expiry which was rejected claiming non-use and expired permission; extension request rejected.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner took sufficient steps putting land to permitted use; rejection communications quashed; permission under land law subsists; authorities directed to decide plan revision within six weeks per rules.

Issues: Interpretation of “put land to such use”; whether initial development satisfies condition avoiding vesting; town planner's power over land purchase permission validity; need for extension beyond maximum period.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory words demand pragmatic reading promoting projects over rigid completion mandate; cogent steps suffice compliance; penal vesting clause activates only on proven wilful failure beyond control, not mere time lapse despite progress.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. permission granted under section 118 for housing project. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. extensions sought amid delays and rejections issued. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. petitioner claims compliance; respondents allege non-utilization. (Para 13 , 14)
4. documents confirm timely development and usage certification. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. section 118 proviso mandates land use within three years. (Para 26 , 27)
6. 'put to use' means cogent development steps initiated. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. no automatic vesting without proven conscious failure. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
8. quash rejections; direct plan revision processing. (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

The petitioner before this Court is a Company, registered under the Companies Act. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner/Company intended to develop Integrated Housing Project at Anech, Pargna Bharolikalan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. over land comprised in Khewat No. 40, Khatauni No. 92, Khasra Nos. 596/537/451, measuring 106 Bigha 04 Biswa and land comprised in Khewat No. 39, Khatauni No. 91, Khasra No. 452/2, measuring 25 Bigha 14 Biswa, land comprised in Khewat No. 48, Khatauni No. 101, Khasra Nos. 536/451/2 and 572/274/1, measuring 10 Bigha 12 Biswa and land comprised in Khewat No. 39 min, Khatauni No. 90 Min, Khasra No. 622/595/537/451/1, measuring 02 Bighas 02 Biswas, total land measuring 144 Bighas 12 Biswas, situated at Village Anech, Pargna Bharolikalan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. as per Jamabandi for the year 2008-09. For the said purpose, the petitioner entered into Agreement(s) to Sell, dated 22.09.2011, with the owners of the said land. The Town and Country Planning Department issued the Essentially Certificate recommending the aforesaid land for transfer in favour of the petitioner-Company in terms of Annexure P-2, dated 27.05.2014. The petitioner/Company, thereafter, sought permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1972 Act’) for the sale/purchase of the said land for the aforesaid purpose. The application was submitted in the prescribed form in the year 2014. Vide Annexure P-3, i.e. communication dated 24.09.2014, the petitioner was informed that the Government had granted permission in favour of the petitioner- Company to purchase the aforesaid land referred to therein, situated in Mauja Anech, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P., for setting up a residential complex i.e. Integrated Housing Project, on the conditions mentioned therein. Pursuant thereto, a Certificate dated 26.2.2015 for registration as a Promotor was issued in favour of the petitioner- Company by Town & Country Planning Department Government of Himachal Pradesh. Copy of the certificate dated 26.2.2015 is appended with the petition as Annexure P-4, dated 26.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company took steps for registering the Sale Deeds and the Sale Deeds were ultimately registered on 26.09.2018. The delay in the execution of Sale Deed was on account of the reasons spelled out in Para-8 of the petition, which included certain litigation also, as few of the land owners with whom the Agreement to Sell was executed, showed their reluctant only to register the Sale Deed and the petitioner had to pursue the matter in the Court also. It is further the contention of the petitioner that though the period of permission granted to the petitioner-Company for the utilization of the land under of the 1972 Act was to be counted from the date of registration of the Sale Deed nevertheless on the applications of the petitioner-Company, the permission was extended till 30.09.2018.

2. After the registration of the Sale Deeds, the Company could not immediately put to use/utilize the land as the same entailed various permissions from concerned Authorities and Departments, such as Panchayats concerned, H.P. Town and Country Planning Depar






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top