ORDER This revision petition has been preferred under section 118(3-C) of the H.P. Tenancy &, Land Reforms Act, 1972 against the orders dated 25.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Shimla division in appeal no. 272/2004. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the present petitioner M/s G. P. Mushroom International Pvt. Ltd. was granted permission to purchase land comprised in khasra no. 52, 111/57,58,261/60,229/169/109/57,168/.109/ 57,165/109/57,110/57, 59,175/1 13/61 and 112/61 kita 11 area measuring 15-15 bighas situated in mauza Khati, tehsil and district Solan by the Government in the Revenue Department vide letter no. Rev. B.F. (10)-191-97 dated 12.2.1998 for setting up a mushroom unit. The above firm purchased land comprised khata/khatauni no. 28 min/ 38, khasra nos. 52, 11 1/57,58,26/60,229/169/166/109/ 57, kita 5 measuring 14-05 bighas to the extent of 270/ 275 share and khata/khatauni no. 67min./88, khasra no. 110/57 measuring 0-13 bighas for setting up the proposed mushroom unit. 3. On a report of the field agency that the firm i.e. present petitioner/company had not set up the mushroom unit within the stipulated period of two years as laid down in the sanction letter of the Government and that the firm has constructed a hotel on the above land in violation of conditions of grant of permission to purchase land and also in violation of section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, the Collector, Solan district issued a show cause notice to the petitioner/company as per the Act ibid and after carrying out proceedings came to the conclusion that the petitioner/company had constructed a hotel without the permission of the State Government in violation of the permission received and had thus violated the provisions of the Act. The said Collector thereupon vide order dated 21.9.2004 ordered vestment of the land purchased by M/s G.P. Mushroom International Pvt. Ltd. in the State of H.P. alongwith structure standing thereon free from all encumbrances. The present petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Shimla division who vide orders dated 25.5.2009 rejected the appeal and' upheld the order passed by the Collector. Hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / company and Dy. D.A. (Rev) for the State/respondent. The present petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Shimla division who vide orders dated 25.5.2009 rejected the appeal and' upheld the order passed by the Collector. Hence this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / company and Dy. D.A. (Rev) for the State/respondent. In addition to the grounds taken in the revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that all papers for change of permission to use of the property from mushroom unit to constructing a hotel/resort were submitted to the Collector but they remained with the Deputy Commissioner since 1999. The petitioner had relied on the Collector / Deputy Commissioner as State to be one. He cited the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in case Ravinder Chauhan & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others [AIR 1999 H.P. page 43] wherein it has been held that purchase of non-agricultural and permission or establishing industrial unit granted - area subsequently declared as residential-use for industrial purpose becoming impossible, land does not vest in Government -it can grant permission for change of use. He has also referred the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Nezone Law House, Assam [AIR 2008 SC 2045] on the point of evidence. Learned counsel contended that the State could not have ordered vestment; there is promissory estoppel till the decision on application for diversion is taken. According to him, the petitioner is still waiting for decision on the application but the Collector has ignored the application that was lying with him. He further stated that the Commissioner has also taken the wrong view which requires to be set aside. 5. In reply the learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) drew attention to para no. 2 of sanction letter that a mushroom unit was to be set up and made functional with in two years; the letter/application for diversification/ change of use is dated after expiry of period given for setting up of the mushroom unit. He stated that the courts below have taken into consideration the entire facts and both the Collector and the Commissioner have passed clear and speaking the entire facts and both the Collector and the Commissioner have passed clear and speaking order's. Learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) pleaded that the orders of the lower courts be upheld. 6. He stated that the courts below have taken into consideration the entire facts and both the Collector and the Commissioner have passed clear and speaking the entire facts and both the Collector and the Commissioner have passed clear and speaking order's. Learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) pleaded that the orders of the lower courts be upheld. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for petitioner stated that there is complete misreading of documents by the Commissioner, the approach of Commissioner is erroneous and very technical. If the Deputy Commissioner does not forward the application, then the applicant is not at fault. 7. I have considered the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the orders of the courts below and the record available. The record of the district Collector reveals that petitioner company was granted permission vide letter No. Rev.-B.F(10) 191/97 dated 12.2.1998 of H. P. Government in the Revenue Department for purchasing the land for setting up a mushroom unit. This permission was under sub-section. (2) (h) of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy &, Land Reforms Act, 1972. As. per clause 2 of this letter, the land was to be used for the aforesaid purpose within a period of a two years failing which the land was to vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, the petitioner company did not set up the mushroom unit within the said two years and later on, i.e. after the ex pirly of the stipulated two years, applied through the Deputy Commissioner of Solan District for permission to set up a hotel instead. Although the petitioner company was able to bet 'no objection certificate' from the Tourism and the Industries departments but without waiting for the required permission from the Government the petitioner company has constructed a hotel on the land. Very clearly the petitioner has violated clause 2 of the aforesaid letter of the Government thereby inviting action under the second proviso below section 118 (2) (h) of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. The contention of the petitioner company that due to non viability of the mushroom project and non availability of loan for the mushroom unit from Bank due to international crisis, the petitioner company had to change the project, does not hold good. Changes in the viability of the proposed, non sanction of loan from financial institutions, etc. The contention of the petitioner company that due to non viability of the mushroom project and non availability of loan for the mushroom unit from Bank due to international crisis, the petitioner company had to change the project, does not hold good. Changes in the viability of the proposed, non sanction of loan from financial institutions, etc. do not empower anyone to deviate from the permission granted. 8. Further the contention of the petitioner company that it had obtained 'no objection certificate' from the Industries and the Tourism departments and submitted the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan District do not give it any right/authority to change the use of the land without the required approval of the Government. There is also no claim of change of use of land by the Government in the instant case so as to attract the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court mentioned at para 4 above. The plea of Prmissory Extoppel put forth by the petitioner in the instant case is also not valid since there was no promise or assurance on the part of the Deputy Commissioner or Government to change the use of the land from setting up mushroom unit to that of constructing a hotel. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner company have also been perused but these are also not of any help to the petitioner company since the ratio applied in the said judgments is not applicable in the instant case. Last but not the least, the submission of an application howsoever complete before the Deputy Commissioner, will not in any manner affect the quasi-judicial proceedings being carried out by the Collector. If the opposite were to be true, all quasi-judicial proceedings before Revenue courts/ authorities could easily be thwarted by putting in an application before the Revenue Officer and then claiming that the application be decided before the quasi judicial proceedings can proceed. The argument that the petitioner had relied upon the Collector and the Deputy Commissioner being one has no force as the two are separate authorities exercising separate powers under different statutes/rules. 9. A perusal of case file of the Collector district Solan also reveals that as per the letter of H.P. Government Revenue Department No. Rev: B.E.(10)/191/97 dated 12.2.1998, the petitioner Company has been granted permission to purchase land comprising kharsa no. 9. A perusal of case file of the Collector district Solan also reveals that as per the letter of H.P. Government Revenue Department No. Rev: B.E.(10)/191/97 dated 12.2.1998, the petitioner Company has been granted permission to purchase land comprising kharsa no. 52, 111/57,58,261/60,229/169/166/109/57,168/109/57,165/109/57, 110/57, 59, 175/113/61 and 112/61 total kita 11 measuring 15- 15 bighas in mauza Khali, Tehsil and Distt. Solan from Shri Om Parkash and Manmohan Kumar etc. co-shares. It is further revealed that out of the above mentioned khasra nos, the petitioner Co. only purchased the land in comprised khasra nos. 52,111/57, 58,261/60,229/169/166/109/57 kita 5 measuring 14-4 bighas to the extent of 270/275 shares in khata/khatauni no. 28min/38 and khasra no. 110/57, measuring 0-13 bighas in khata/katauni no. 67min/88, meaning thereby only 6 khasra Nos. out of 11 khasra nos. have been purchased by the petitioner. It is not legible from the copy of permission letter of the Government in the record as to the shares of which co-shares in this khata have been allowed to be purchased. Further the copy of jamabandi for the year 1994-95 available in the file of the Collector pertaining to khata/khatauni no. 28 min/38 reveals that out of total 275 shares only 270 shares have been purchased by the petitioner Company meaning thereby that 5 shares of the co-shares was not sold and obviously these are not covered within the ambit of the present proceedings initiated by the district Collector. Surprisingly the given sum total of 275 shares do not tally as per the copy of jajabandi for 1994-95 as the shown shares of different co-shares are (35), (98), (33), (43) and (33) the total of which comes to 242 and not 275m thus (33) shares still fall short which have not been shown in the aforesaid copy of jamabandi. Be that as it may, the notice issued to the petitioner by the Collector clearly states that the petitioner had purchased land from khata/khatauni no. 28 min/38 comprised in khasra nos. 52,111/57,58,261,60, 229/169/166/109/57, kita 5 measuring 14-05 bighas to the extent of 270/275 shares only. 10. I thus find that the pleas of the present petitioner are not valid for reasons indicated in the forgoing paragraphs. I further find that the evidence has been appreciated correctly by the trial court and the proceedings as well as its orders are as per the law. 10. I thus find that the pleas of the present petitioner are not valid for reasons indicated in the forgoing paragraphs. I further find that the evidence has been appreciated correctly by the trial court and the proceedings as well as its orders are as per the law. The conclusion reached by the Commissioner is also correct. 1 find no impropriety or infirmity in the orders passed by both the lower courts except in respect of the 5 unsold shares referred to above. The order passed by the Collector, Solan district in case No. 1/13 of 2001 dated 21.9.2004 and the impugned order of the Commissioner, Shimla division, passed in Revenue Appeal No. 272/2004 dated 25.5.2009 are therefore upheld but with the modification that only 270 shares purchased by the petitioner will vest in the State and not entire holdings in khewat no. 28. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 11, Orders be communicated to the parties. The record of the Courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B.