Surya Kant, C.J. (Oral):— The first petitioner is a registered partnership firm, whereas petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners. The other partner of petitioner No. 1 is one Mr. Deependra Singh Rathore.
2. It is averred and not specifically denied in the reply on behalf of the respondents that both the partners of the petitioner-Firm are bonafide agriculturists of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner-Firm applied under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short ‘the Act’) to purchase some land for setting up of Apartment/Housing Colony and such permission was granted to it on 21.6.2014. The land was thereafter purchased vide Sale Deeds dated 18.6.2015 and Mutation was duly recorded. The Firm, however, failed to implement the project within a period of two years, hence it applied for extension of time, which was duly granted for a period of one year. As the project was not implemented within the extended period also, the petitioner-Firm again applied and while declining its prayer, the State Government has passed the impugned Order dated 31.7.2018, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan has been informed that on expiry of the earlier extended period, the land purchased by the Firm shall stand vested in the State in terms of 2 Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 118 of the above mentioned Act. The aggrieved Firm along with its partners has approached the Court.
3. It goes without saying that if the partners of the petitioner-Firm are bonafide agriculturists of Himachal Pradesh, they were/are entitled to purchase the agriculture land without any prior permission under Section 118 of the Act. The Firm will also draw legal status and entity from that of its partners. In such an eventuality, it appears to us that if the petitioner-Firm was unable to make out a case for extension of time, the land purchased by it at best will revert back to its partners who being bonafide Himachalies agriculturists are competent and entitled to purchase the same. This aspect of the matter has not been gone into by the State Government, as neither the Firm nor its partners were heard before passing the impugned Order dated 31.7.2018. The impugned action of taking away/depriving them from the ownership rights of the land thus visits them with serious civil consequence and it could not have been done without observing the principle of natural justice.
4. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 31.7.2018 is set aside and the State government is directed to reconsider the petitioners' request for extension of time and/or reversal or repatriation of the land to its partners, in accordance with law. An appropriate decision shall be taken after hearing the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Comments