ORDER Dr. A.R. Basu, F.C.—This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Sh. Sunil Kumar under Section 65 read with Section 118 subsection 3 (C) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974, against an order dated 25.2.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner (Revenue) H.P. in a Revenue Appeal No. 211/99 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Collector, Solan, was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on a report of Tehsildar Solan, the District Collector, Solan initiated proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 against the present respondent No. 2 and the present petitioner. He found that the present respondent No. 2 Smt. Nirmla Devi had purchased 262 Sq. Mtrs. of land comprised in khata khatoni No.371/998, khasra No. 974 situated in Mauza Bansal Patti Kather, Tehsil and District Solan vide Sale Deed No. 662 dated 19.11.1994 from the present petitioner Shri Sunil Kumar through his General Power of Attorney Shri Akash Singla son of Shri Gagan Swaroop Singla fraudulently by producing a certificate of being an agriculturist in the name of one Nirmla daughter of Sh. Munsi Ram resident of Village Nalhog Khas, Village Chausha, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan. Hence, it was concluded that the present respondent No. 2 being a non-agriculturist who was not entitled to purchase the land in Himachal Pradesh had managed to obtain the land on the basis of a forged document issued by the Patwari Halqua and thus had cheated the Sub-Registrar for executing the Sale Deed. 3. The learned District Collector Solan after hearing both the parties and going through the record held that the present respondent No. 2 Smt. Nirmla Devi had played a fraud by cheating the Sub-Registrar to execute a Sale Deed with regard to purchase of the land in dispute through a General Power of Attorney who was also her son. He therefore, ordered vestment of the property in question i.e. land comprised khasra No. 974 measuring 262 Sq. Mtr. Situated in Mauza Basal Patti Kathiar, Tehsil and District Solan along with the structure standing thereon, in the State of H.P. free from all encumbrances under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 vide order dated 20.11.1999. He therefore, ordered vestment of the property in question i.e. land comprised khasra No. 974 measuring 262 Sq. Mtr. Situated in Mauza Basal Patti Kathiar, Tehsil and District Solan along with the structure standing thereon, in the State of H.P. free from all encumbrances under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 vide order dated 20.11.1999. Aggrieved by this order of the District Collector Solan dated 20.11.1999, Shri Sunil Kumar (present petitioner) filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla on the grounds that the order passed by the District Collector was based on surmises and conjectures. According to him, the learned Collector had failed to appreciate law and facts of the case and had reached upon a wrong conclusion. It was claimed that in a Civil Suit titled as "Sunil Kumar v. Smt. Nirmla," the learned Sub-Judge, Solan had held the Sale Deed No. 62 as wrong, illegal, and void and therefore the transaction so made on its basis had become void. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing both the parties and going through the record of the case, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 25.2.2003 holding that neither was the State made a party before the Civil Court nor was there was any issue under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 subjudice before the Civil Court. Therefore the judgment and decree of the Civil Court were not binding upon the State. 5. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Commissioner (Revenue) H.P. the present revision petition has been filed. 6. The records of the Courts below was summoned and the learned Counsel for both the parties were heard. 7. Shri Dushyant Dhadwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds taken in the revision petition argued that the property in dispute is a built up structure situated within the limits of Municipal Committee, Solan and therefore sale of this structure does not attract the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. He further argued that the Power of Attorney executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of Shri Akash Singla has been declared null and void by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat consequent to a Civil Suit filed by the respondent No. 2. Therefore, according to him, the sale deed executed pursuant thereto is also null and void. He further argued that the Power of Attorney executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of Shri Akash Singla has been declared null and void by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat consequent to a Civil Suit filed by the respondent No. 2. Therefore, according to him, the sale deed executed pursuant thereto is also null and void. He has cited the case "Nirmal Singh v. Randhir Sharma, SLC pages 255," decided on 6.7.1993 wherein the Honble High Court of H.P. has held that, "Section 118 bar there under-not to apply to a constructed area which is not subservient to agriculture—Rest of all lands in H.P. shall be covered by the bar". In "Randhir Sharma v. Nirimal Singh" Civil Suit No. 88 of 1990/ decided on 28.10.1990, the Honble High Court has held that, "the suit property in this case constitutes of constructed area being put to residential as also commercial use which is admittedly not subservient to agriculture as is apparent from the entries in the jamabandi. Thus, the aforesaid suit property is not included in the definition of land as envisaged in Section 118. In other words, there is no bar with respect to the transfer of the suit property in this case by the defendant to plaintiff". 8. The learned District Attorney (Revenue) argued that the land has been fraudulently transferred in favour of a non-agriculturist which is illegal and is in total violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the Act ibid. The order of both the Court below Commissioner as well as Collector are well reasoned, in consonance of Section 118 of the Act, and therefore the landed property alongwith built-up structure should be vested in the name State Government. 9. I have considered the arguments adduced by the learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned D.A. (Rev.) for State. 10. I am of the opinion that the learned Collector has based his findings on the fact that the certificate of being an agriculturist was obtained by playing fraud and the sale transaction in pursuance thereto is a violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the Act ibid. However, the issue of the property in dispute being covered under the definition of land under Section (7) of Act ibid needs to be enquired into in relevant keeping in view the afore cited judgments of the Honble High Court of H.P. 11. However, the issue of the property in dispute being covered under the definition of land under Section (7) of Act ibid needs to be enquired into in relevant keeping in view the afore cited judgments of the Honble High Court of H.P. 11. The matter is therefore remanded back to the Collector to conduct an enquiry into the fact, whether the disputed property is in fact "Land" as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act. All concerned parties may be given the due opportunity of being present before passing any order in this regard. However, in case, after due consideration the learned Collector comes to the conclusion that a fraud has been committed in addition to a violation under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the Collector shall take appropriate action as he deem fit in accordance with law. 12. Announced in the open Court today the 7th June, 2005. 13. Record of lower Courts be returned and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision disposed of.