ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed by the State of H.P. through District Collector, Solan, under Section 118(3)(c) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 against an order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division in appeal No. 125/2001. The learned Commissioner, has accepted the appeal of the present respondent filed against an order dated 27.2.2001 of the District Collector, Solan, and held that the appellant (Smt. Jaswinder Kaur) has not violated the provisions of Section 118 of the Act as found by the Sub-Divisional Collector and Distt. Collector, Solan in their order dated 26.8.1993 and 27.2.2001, respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Sub-Divisional, Collector, Solan initiated proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, against the present respondent (Smt. Jaswinder Kaur) and vide order dated 26.8.1993 ordered the confiscation of the land in question(Khasra No.505/156, and 507, situated in Mauza Saprun, Tehsil and Distt. Solan) alongwith structure, if any, standing thereon in favour of the State Govt. Against the said order Smt. Jaswinder Kaur filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, who vide his order dated 29.3.1994 remanded the case back to the District Collector, Solan with the observation that the matter is to be disposed of by the District Collector under Rule 38(b) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1993. The Distt. Collector heard the matter arid on 27.2.2001 passed a detailed order upholding the order dated 26.8.1993 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Solan and ordered that the land in question alongwith structure thereon would stand vested in the State of H.P. for the violation of the provisions of the Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Distt. Collector dated 27.2.2001, the present respondent (Smt. Jaswinder Kaur) filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who vide his order dated 7.6.2004 accepted the appeal and held as under: " I have heard the arguments put forth by the counsels for both the sides and have also gone through the record. Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, provides that no transfer land shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. In the present case appellant had purchased the land in question by way of sale agreement. Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, provides that no transfer land shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. In the present case appellant had purchased the land in question by way of sale agreement. Plea of the appellant that agreement was not banned in 1975 but it was barred by the amendment of Act in 1994 only is a valid plea in the present case. Perusal of the agreement itself indicates that the transaction of property had taken place through an agreement on 16.8.1975 whereas the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms (amendment), Act 1994 was published in H.P. Rajpatra on 4th April, 1995 Act whereby the following inserted; "An authorization made by the order by way of special or general power of attorney or by an agreement with the intention to put a non-agriculturist in possession of the land and allow him to deal with the land in the like manner as if he is a real owner of that land." In view of the above, the appellant has not violated the provisions of Section 118 of the Act." 3. Aggrieved by this order of the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla dated 7.6.2004, the Distt. Collector, Solan through D.A. (Rev) has filed this revision petition before this court on the grounds that the impugned order is against the law, facts, arbitrary, passed without appreciating the facts on record and is based on surmises and conjectures. It has also been contended that the respondent is a non agriculturist and she has not obtained permission to acquire land from the competent authority as required under the law. It has further been stated that Smt. Jaswinder Kaur has committed forgery in trying to prove herself to be an adopted daughter of one Shri Nand Lal while the documents shows that she is the daughter of Shri Roshan Lal. There is no mention any where in the document that she was ever- adopted by Shri Roshan Lal. An FIR had also been lodged for forgery and fraud committed by her and proceedings were going on in the matter. 4. The learned D.A. (Revenue) appearing for the State further reiterated the grounds of appeal and traced the history of the case. An FIR had also been lodged for forgery and fraud committed by her and proceedings were going on in the matter. 4. The learned D.A. (Revenue) appearing for the State further reiterated the grounds of appeal and traced the history of the case. He stated that it was quite clear from the record that Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was a non-agriculturist and she was not entitled to acquire land in a rural area in H.P. He also requested that delay in finding the petition challenging the orders of the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla passed on 7.6.2004 may be condoned on account of the reasons stated in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He further stressed that the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla had wrongly appreciated the evidence while holding that in this case violation of the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 had not taken place and setting aside the order of the District Collector dated 27.2.2001 ordering that the land in question along with structure thereon would stand vested in the State of H.P. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was an adopted daughter of Shri Nand Lal and she had entered into an agreement with Smt. Gurnam Kaur for the purchase of land in Khasra No.438/250/2, measuring 0-8 biswas on 16.8.1975. The full consideration in respect of the sale had been paid to the seller on that very, date and the transaction was completed. Since the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into operation w.e.f. 4.10.1975 this sale transaction was not hit by the provisions of this legislation and hence the violation of Section 118 against Smt. Jaswinder Kaur could not be established. He argued that the learned Divisional Commissioner had through order dated 7.6.2005 rightly set aside the order of the District Collector vesting this property in the state of H.P. and this order should be upheld. 6. Having perused the record, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case regarding adoption of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur by Shri Nand Lal and her claims to be an agriculturist. 6. Having perused the record, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case regarding adoption of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur by Shri Nand Lal and her claims to be an agriculturist. Clearly she acquired the property that is the subject matter of this case by virtue of the sale agreement of 15.8.1975 when the full consideration for the transaction was also paid in the seller in respect of Khasra No.438/250/2(old), measuring 0-8 biswas. The H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 that disallowed the transfer of agriculturist land, as defined in the Act, to a non-agriculturist, came into operation w.e.f. 4.10.1975. Hence, the transaction in favour of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur took place prior to the effective date and cannot be Jaswinder Kaur took place prior to the effective date and cannot be examined with reference to the provisions of this Act. This revision petition is therefore rejected. 7. Announced in the open court today the 18th July, 2006. Record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.