Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

1¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Whether approved for reptorting? The District Collector, Solan, H.P. on 07.10.2017,passed an order of vestment of land in question in the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of respondent’s failure in putting the land to use within the period prescribed under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (The Act in short). Respondent’s appeal against this order was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, on 06.03.2019. Revision Petition preferred by the State was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. on 02.12.2019.Feeling aggrieved, State of Himachal Pradesh hasnow preferred this writ petition, assailing the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 06.03.2019 as also dated 02.12. 2019, passed by theFinancial Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties andconsidered the case filre.

3. The Case.

3(i). Proceedings under Section 118 of the Act for non- utilization of the land in question within the stipulated period were initiated against the respondent. Petitioner’s case was that respondent purchased the land for establishing the industrial unit in accordance with the Government permission letter dated 21.11.2003. The land had not been utilized by the respondent for above purpose within the period mentioned in the permission letter as also in terms of Section 118 of the Act. Respondent’s defence was that it had not violated the provisions of the Act, but had taken various steps for utilizing the land. It had obtained permission from Town & Country Planning Department, H.P., State Pollution Control Board, Irrigation & Public Health Department, Industries Department etc. It had also taken approval like Environment Protection etc. Respondent further projected that it had already constructed the bounHdary wall with gate, bore well, security room, store room and had fenced the land for the purpose of construction of building as per plan. It had also obtained electricity and water connections. Respondent stated that it was in the process of setting up the industrial unit. Keeping the stand of the respondent in view, the District Collector Solan, on 12.05.2015, discharged the respondent from notice issued to it under Section 118 of the Act, with direction to it to utilize the land by establishing thehindustrial unit within one year. The order was with the rider gthat in case new fact is brought to the notice of the Court, proceedings under Section 118 of the Act would be re-instituted against the respondent.

3(ii) Proceedings under Section 118 of the Act were re- instituted against the respondent on 06.02.2017. The respondent contested the proceedings, however the District Collector Solan, on 07.10.2017, ordered for vestment of land in the State Government on the ground that Naib Tehsildar Baddi, District Solan had reported on 14.12.2016 that the land in question was visited by the concerned Patwari 01.10.2016 and he had reported non utilization of land in question by the respondent for establiHshing the industrial unit. During pendency of proceedings, the spot was also visited by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Nalagarh, H.P, The SDM furnished his report dated 03.10.2017, mentioning that the land in question had not been utilized for the purpose for which it was purchased. That industrial unit did not exist onthe site.

3(iii) CWhile allowing respondent’s appeal against the above order passed by the District Collector, the Divisional Commissioner, held that the District Collector had merely relied upon the report of Patwari and of Sub DivisionaliMagistrate Nalagarh. No statement of any witness was recorded by the reporting authority at the time of spot visit. Statement of the reporting authority was also not recorded by the vesting authority. The reports on the basis of which proceedings had initiated against the respo