ORDER Mrs. Rajwant Sandhu, F.C. (Appeals).—This revision petition has been filed under Section 114 read with Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, against the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla dated 21.12.1998 passed in revenue Appeal No. 102/98 confirming the order of the Ld. Collector, Sirmour dated 28.11.1996 for resumption of land comprising Khasra No. 415/390/1 measuring 0-14 Biswas in village Rampur Jatan, Tehsil Nahan to the Government in view of the violation of Section 118 (3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 2. The record of the Courts below was called for and examined. Written arguments on behalf of the petitioner are on record and the same have been perused. The learned D.A. (Rev.) has argued the matter today on behalf of the respondent State. 3. In his written arguments, it has been averred on behalf of the petitioner that a show cause notice was issued to him under Section 118 (3) of the Act ibid by the learned Collector Sirmaur on 20.9.1995 to show cause regarding the alleged sale/transfer of the disputed land in favour of M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drug Industries Kala-amb. It has further been averred that the petitioner had some where in the year 1985-86 entered into a agreement of sale with M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drug Industries who applied to the State Government for grant of permission to purchase the said land but as the permission could not be obtained, they closed the set up in the year 1987 and surrendered the possession of the land in favour of the petitioner and therefore the land was never transferred to M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drugs Industries. It has been contended that the Collector, without holding an enquiry passed the order of vestment of the property even when there was no transfer of land. According to the petitioner legal and valid transfer of property can be made only by conforming to the requirements prescribed by law not otherwise. Reference has also been made to the transfer of property as defined under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He has further cited the Honble High Court of H.P. in the matter of Prakash Lal v. State of H.P., 1993 Vol. Reference has also been made to the transfer of property as defined under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He has further cited the Honble High Court of H.P. in the matter of Prakash Lal v. State of H.P., 1993 Vol. (2) SLC page 89, wherein it has been held that the provision contained in Section 118 (3) which came into force on 14th April, 1988 can not be applied retrospectively. 4. The learned D.A. (Rev.) argued that it is an undisputed fact that M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drug Industries was an non-agriculturist and Shri Babu Ram had put the former in possession of the land in dispute, thereby violating the provisions of Section 118 of the Act, which intends to debar a non-agriculturist from acquiring land in the State. According to him the petitioner has admitted in his written argument that he had, in fact, entered into an agreement to sale with M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drug Industries and had also put the latter into possession of the land. He asserted that this being a case of clear cut violation of the intent of the legislation, the learned Collector has rightly ordered vestment of the land in dispute in the State. 5. Having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and perusing the record, the following inference can be drawn. 6. The record shows that the notices were issued to Shri Babu Ram the land owner and M/s. Krishana Chemicals and Drug Industries, Kala-Amb under Section 118 (3) of the Act. Shri Babu Ram did file his response that in the year 1985-86 he had entered into an agreement of sale of the land in question with Respondent No. 1 i.e. M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drug Industries, Kala-Amb as the latter Firm wanted to set up a factory in this area. However, M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drug Industries, Kala-Amb failed to obtain the necessary permission of the Government and the factory was closed in the year 1987. As such, no registered sale deed was prepared in favour of M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drugs Industries, Kala-Amb but the firm surrendered the possession of the land in favour of Shri Babu Ram. Presently, Shri Babu Ram is the owner in possession of the area in question. As such, no registered sale deed was prepared in favour of M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drugs Industries, Kala-Amb but the firm surrendered the possession of the land in favour of Shri Babu Ram. Presently, Shri Babu Ram is the owner in possession of the area in question. The proceedings in the case were initiated in 1995, were carried out in summary fashion and no attempt was made to get Shri Babu Ram to prove his contention regarding "agreement to sell" not having been implemented finally. 7. As per the Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Transfer of Property is defined as: - "An Act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons or to himself, or to himself and one or more other living persons, and "to transfer property" is to perform such act." 8. Sale, as defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act means, a transfer of ownership exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised. Such a transfer in case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred Rupees and upward, or in case of reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a Registered Instrument. Under Section 118 (3) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the registration of any document pertaining to transfer of land, which is in contravention to sub-section (1) is void ab initio. In the present case, no transfer of land as defined under sub-section (1) of Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 has taken place. It is clear from the record that the petitioner never intended to transfer the land to M/s. Krishana Chemical and Drug Industries in violation of the provisions of law but had entered into an agreement to sell with a bona fide intention on the part of the latter to get the land transferred in accordance with the provisions of Section 118 of the Act after obtaining permission from the State Government. It is an admitted fact that they applied to the Government for permission in furtherance to the agreement but on failing to obtain the requisite permission, they vacated the premises and handed over the possession to the owner. 9. It is an admitted fact that they applied to the Government for permission in furtherance to the agreement but on failing to obtain the requisite permission, they vacated the premises and handed over the possession to the owner. 9. The law is quite clear that the sale can be recognized only when a registered document is prepared, while in this case it is clear that this did not happen. Presently, also it appears that the area in question is in the possession of Shri Babu Ram. In view of this, there is no case for taking recourse to sub-section (3) of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act that provides for the vesting of the land in the State Government where the transfer of land is found to be in contravention of subsection (1) of Section 118. While Shri Babu Ram did enter into the "agreement to sell" however due to the abandonment of the premises by M/ s Krishana Chemical and Drugs Industries, Kala-Amb in 1987 the land in question has reverted to the possession of Shri Babu Ram. The order of the Divisional Commissioner, dated 21.12.1998 is therefore set aside and the land comprised in village Rampur Jatan, Tehsil Nahan may, revert to the ownership of Shri Babu Ram in the revenue record. 10. Record of lower Courts be returned and the case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. 11. Announced in the Court open Court today the 7th March, 2006. Revision disposed of. -