ORDER (Sh. P. Mitra) - This matter arises in revision against the common order of the Commissioner, Shimla division, dated 30.7.1996 in revenue appeals No. 19/96 and 20/96. Since the subject matter/parties are the same, the revisions are being dealt with together here also. 2. The facts of the case in brie(are that the Collector, Solan district had received a report that Sh. Om Prakash, owner of khasra nos. 2277/2169/416, 217/417 and 418 kita 3 totalling of 3-11 bighas in mauza Kasauli,' Tehsil Kasuali of Solan district had sold this land in 1984 through agreement to one non-agriculturist Shri Subhash Chander for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/ - and possession had been handed over to the said Shri Subhash Chander without permission of the State Government. 3. On receipt of this report, the Collector, Solan district initiated proceedings u/s 118 of the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter Act) and finally vide order dated 1.11.1995, held that the transfer of the above said land in favour of Shri Subhash Chander, a non-agriculturist, had taken place and thus section 118 of the 'Act' ibid had been violated. The Collector, Solan district further ordered the vestment of the abovesaid land in the State alongwith structures thereon free from all encumbrances. The Tehsildar,. Kasauli Tehsil was directed to take over possession of the land after the appeal period. The concerned parties had thereafter gone in appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla division, who vide order dated 30.7.1996 dismissed the appeals. Hence these revisions before this court: 4. Arguments on behalf of Smt. Indu Bala LR of Shri Om Parkash (deceased) and Dy. District Attorney (Revenue) appearing on behalf of the State were heard on 8.9.2009 on which date learned counsel for Shri Subhash Chander had sought time to file written arguments. Learned counsel was asked to file the same within a month but which he did not file till 20.10.2009 on which date learned counsel stated that he did not want to file any written arguments. Oral arguments were also not forthcoming on his part therefore the matter is being decided without the benefit of arguments on behalf of Shri Subhasn Chander. 5. During oral arguments, learned counsel for Smt. Indu Bala LR of Shri Om Prakash, recalled the events of the case. Oral arguments were also not forthcoming on his part therefore the matter is being decided without the benefit of arguments on behalf of Shri Subhasn Chander. 5. During oral arguments, learned counsel for Smt. Indu Bala LR of Shri Om Prakash, recalled the events of the case. He stated that it is admitted that the property had been sold to Shri Subhash Chander who was to obtain the permission of the Government (in respect of permission u/s 118 of the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act) as he was not an agriculturist. As per learned counsel, only a very brief point is involved in the instant case and that is that the LR of Shri Om Prakash, Smt. Indu Bala admits that the transactions in which her father was involved may have been in violation of the Act. However the instant case is covered by the provisions of the original Act i.e. prior to the amendments which" took place in 1988. Learned counsel clarified that the Act had been amended by Gazette notification published on 14.4.1988 but prior to this there was no provisions for vestment even if the transaction itself was not valid. Learned counsel even claimed that entering into an agreement does not amount to a transaction; at the most, the• agreement was invalid. As per learned counsel, in the instant case, two other points emerge: firstly that the agreement was not enforced and secondly in the 1998 amendments, there is provision that the changes in the Act in respect of vestment will not affect transactions which had taken place earlier. Learned counsel cited the case of Parkash Lal us State of HP & Others [1993 (2) Sim. LC 88]. In this decision, it has been very clearly laid down that the provisions regarding vestment will not apply to transactions prior to the amendment. He emphasized that the State cannot confiscate the property in the instance case. 6. In reply, learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) for the State argued that the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act very clearly provides the circumstances in which the transfer of land in favour of a non-agriculturist is not valid. Secondly, in the instant case, though there was agreement for applying for permission from the Government but this does not mean that transfer did not take place. D.A. (Revenue) for the State argued that the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act very clearly provides the circumstances in which the transfer of land in favour of a non-agriculturist is not valid. Secondly, in the instant case, though there was agreement for applying for permission from the Government but this does not mean that transfer did not take place. In the instant case, the evidence on record very clearly shows that consideration was paid and possession was also given. Since the vendee was a non-agriculturist, the transfer was not valid ab initio and therefore the property will vest in the State. The amendments carried out by the State Legislature in 1988 will take effect from the date of commencement of the Act itself and the authority cited by the learned counsel on opposite side is not applicable. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for petitioner Smt. Indu Bala stated that the provisions of vestment was added by the amendment carried out by the amendment Act of 1997. Since the transaction is much prior to that, hence the vestment provisions will not apply. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and also the record of the case, especially the plaint of Shri Subhash Chander. In his petition before this court, Shri Subhash Chander has basically pleaded that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner is an agriculturist and had produced a certificate issued by the Patwari that the land in his possession is under cultivation. As per this petition, it is not necessary that the person who cultivates the land must be an agriculturist. Further Shri Subhash Chander had also raised the issue of being a tenant of the land and that the agreement between the parties was necessitated only on account of wrong revenue entries. The said petitioner has even taken the stance that had the respondent Shri Om Parkash agreed to get the revenue entries changed in accordance with what Shri Subhash Chander terms as "true possession", in that eventuality there would have not been any need for the agreement. The said Shri Subhash Chander has also alleged that the lower court has failed to appreciate that a simple agreement does not amount to a transaction, as such the case does not fall within the scope of section 118 of HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. The said Shri Subhash Chander has also alleged that the lower court has failed to appreciate that a simple agreement does not amount to a transaction, as such the case does not fall within the scope of section 118 of HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. Lastly Shri Subhash Chander has claimed that the lower court has failed to appreciate that he was cultivating others lands also and the evidence• produced by him could not have been ignored and that the wrong and erroneous approach adopted by the lower courts have led them to reach wrong conclusions. 9. In this regard the said Shri Su bhash Chander has based his claim to be an agriculturist on the basis of a certificate from the halqa Patwari that the land in the possession of Shri Subhash Chander was under cultivation by him. The collector of the district has pointed out the contradictions in the evidence of Shri Subhash Chander and why Shri Subhash Chander cannot become an agriculturist by the cultivation of 3 biswas of land, which was earlier part of the land classified as 'gair mumkin ghar'. The Collector has also placed reliance on the fact that the agreement entered into by Shri Subhash Chander and Shri Om Parkash provided for obtaining permission of the State Government (for purchase of land). Shri Subhash Chander has of course attempted to show that the agreements was necessitated only on account of wrong revenue entries and this agreement was necessitated because of the position adopted by Shri Om Prakash. This is not acceptable because if Shri Om Prakash had adopted an inconvenient position, then he i.e. Shri Om Prakash would not have entered into agreement for the convenience of Shri Subhash Chander. The Collector has also reached his conclusion regarding the factum of a transaction between the parties because the agreement between the parties indicated that money changed hands and possession was also delivered. In these circumstances, the pleadings of Shri Subhash Chancier that no transaction took place cannot be accepted. 10. I find that the Collector, Solan district has very carefully appreciated the evidence on record especially with regard to questions like whether Shri Su bhash Chander was an agriculturist and also whether the consideration had been paid and whether possession of the land had been given to him. 10. I find that the Collector, Solan district has very carefully appreciated the evidence on record especially with regard to questions like whether Shri Su bhash Chander was an agriculturist and also whether the consideration had been paid and whether possession of the land had been given to him. On the basis of these findings, the Collector has reached the conclusion that the payment of consideration and change of possession which took place in 1984 was a violation of the provisions of the Act. The Commissioner has also checked the evidence on record and has also reached the same conclusion. I find no error in the appreciation of the evidence by both the lower courts and thus their findings on the facts is unassailable. Smt. Indu Sala's counsel also practically admitted to the violation of the Act. Thus since Shri Subhash Chander, a non-agriculturist, had purchased the land, the transaction was not valid as per the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act and to this extent the conclusions of the lower courts in this respect are correct. 11. The Collector, Solan district, has further ordered the vestment of the land in question in the State of HP. He has done so on the ground that the proceedings being conducted by him were being done prospectively and not retrospectively. This, while not having sufficient detail of reasoning, apparently intends to mean that since the proceedings were being carried out after the amendments to the Act made in 1988, hence the amended Act would be applicable. I am afraid I cannot agree with this interpretation. The HP High Court in the case Parkash Lal us State of HP and Others (cited at para 5 above) has held that the provisions regarding vestment (consequent to the amendment of the Act in 1988) have prospective effect. In fact His Lordship Mr. Devender Gupta, J had held as under:- 20. Sub-section (3) of Section 118 providing for the vesting of the land in the State Government where transfer of land is found to be in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 118 is one of such provisions which by virtue of sub-section (3) of section 1, the State legislature expressly provided to come into force at once, namely, 14th April,. 1988. 1988. The said provision was neither in the statute book, so as to apply to the transaction already completed before 14th April, 1988, nor will it have the effect of the property vesting in the State Government, even if a transfer of any property was invalid as a result of contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 118, as it stood prior to the amendment. " 12. The consequence of all this is that while the transaction which took place between the parties was not valid as per the provisions of the Act, the order of the Collector for vestment of the land/structure in the State of HP is contrary to the law as provision regarding vestment are not applicable in the instant case as the transaction took place prior to the 1988 amendment. Accordingly the petition No. 169/97 is dismissed as being without merit while petition No. 179/98 is also dismissed to the extent that while the action of the Collector, Solan district in finding the transaction to be not valid as per the provisions of the Act is upheld, his order for the vestment of the land / structure in the State of HP is set aside. The Commissioner's order is also set aside to the same extent. 13. Announced in the open court today the 29th December, 2009. 14. The records of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B.