JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs: “(a) To direct the respondent 1, 2 and 3 to record the petitioner as the owner in possession of property detailed hereinbelow by mutating the same in his favour. The details of the property being: (i) Property bearing Khewat and Khatoni No. 12 min/12 min, Khasra Nos. 43 (2-5), 44 (2-1), 45 (2-2), 42 (0-12), 49 (2-5), 50 (1-13), Kittas 6 total 10 Bighas and 18 Biswas, situated at Village Billanwali Lubana, Baddi, Teh. Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. (as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82). (ii) Property bearing Khewat and Khatoni No. 55 min/61 min, Khasra Nos. 40 (07), 41 (4-15), Kittas 2 total 5 Bigha 2 Biswa situate at Village Billanwali Lubana, Baddi, Teh. Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. (as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82. to quash Annexures PE, PF, PG, PM and consequently to quash and set aside all such red entries made by the respondents in the Revenue Record pertaining to the property of the petitioner pertaining to the alleged amounts due to the Sales Tax Authorities from M/s United Ispat Udyog Limited, as demanded by Respondent No. 4 as detailed I para -(a) supra and especially all such red entries that have been made in the Revenue records qua the above detailed properties after the 10th of March, 2003. (b) Toquash Annexure PT (Colly) i.e. communication dated 4th April, 2007, addressed by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioners as being not applicable tot he case of the petitioner. (c) To direct the respondents to refrain from making any entries by way of attachment qua the property in question belonging to the petitioner, save and except for any legitimate dues that may be ordered to be recovered or found to be recoverable from the petitioner alone and none else.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there was a company known as M/s United Ispat Industries Private Limited, Village Billanwali Lubana, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. The Company had obtained financial assistance from various financial institutions including respondent No. 5-Bank. The Bank initiated proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the aforesaid company and finally the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh issued certificate for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,50,91,363/-. The Company had obtained financial assistance from various financial institutions including respondent No. 5-Bank. The Bank initiated proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, against the aforesaid company and finally the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Chandigarh issued certificate for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,50,91,363/-. The property was put to sale. Proclamation of sale was drawn up on 28th January, 2003 and the property was ordered to be sold by 10th March, 2003. The petitioner was the highest bidder and purchased the property for Rs.81,10,000/-. The sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner on 11th June, 2003 and thereafter, sale certificate was issued in his favour on 6th August, 2004. A copy of this certificate was also forwarded by the Recovery Officer to the Tehsildar/Sub Registrar concerned for making necessary entry in the revenue record. In the meantime, on 12th March, 2003, an entry was made in the Roznamcha Vakyati wherein it was mentioned that as per the directions of the Tehsildar bearing No. 636, dated 11.03.2003 and orders of the Excise and Taxation Officer dated 07.03.2003, the property in question had been attached bearing No. 379 for non-payment of 17,38,658/-. The communication of the Excise and Taxation Officer is dated 7th March, 2003. 3. Thereafter, vide entry made in Roznamcha Vakyati on 30th April, 2003, bearing No. 464, this property was also attached pursuant to the orders of the learned Civil Judge, Nalagarh dated 17th January, 2003. These orders had been passed by the Sub Judge-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh in case titled Desh Raj versus S.K. Puri. Later on, this property was also attached on 20th October, 2005 vide Roznamcha bearing No. 120. This appears to be a follow up of the earlier attachment orders on the request of Excise and Taxation Department. 4. The matter does not end here, but the Electricity Board also obtained orders of attachment of this very property from this Court on 27.09.2005 in Execution Petition No. 4 of 2004. These orders are also reflected in the Roznamcha dated 16th November, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1355 of 2005 in this Court wherein he prayed that all the aforesaid attachments were illegal and the same may be set aside. These orders are also reflected in the Roznamcha dated 16th November, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1355 of 2005 in this Court wherein he prayed that all the aforesaid attachments were illegal and the same may be set aside. In this writ petition, on 28.12.2005, this Court directed that status quo as it exists on spot be maintained with respect to the nature and possession of the property being maintained by the parties. This writ petition was contested by the State on various grounds and one of the grounds raised was that the petitioner being a non-Himachali and a non-agriculturist was not entitled to purchase the land in terms of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. On 12.09.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner intends to apply to the competent authority for grant of such permission without prejudice to his rights to contend, that such permission was not acquired. The application was not filed within time and finally on 24.03.2008, the following order was passed: “On 12th September, 2006 counsel for the petitioner had made a statement to this Court that the petitioner intends to apply to the competent authority for permission in terms of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. He was permitted to make the application. The application was not made within time granted by this Court and vide order dated 19.12.2006 the petitioner was granted two weeks’ further time to file such an application. This Court had directed that in case such an application is filed to the competent authority on or before 8th January, 2007 the same shall be decided by the State Government on or before 9th April, 2007. We have now been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application was made and the same stands rejected. However, he is unable to give the date of rejection. The rejection of the application gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition challenging the order of rejection of the application filed by him for grant of permission in terms of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The rejection of the application gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition challenging the order of rejection of the application filed by him for grant of permission in terms of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. We may however clarify, that the petitioner in the fresh proceedings, if any filed by him, shall be at liberty to raise all points raised in the present writ petition also.” 5. Thereafter, the present petitioner has filed the present petition basically on two grounds. Firstly that the attachments of the property referred to above are illegal and liable to be ordered to be removed since they were entered and brought into effect after 10th March, 2003, when the sale had already taken place. His second contention is that since he has purchased the property pursuant to the directions issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which has been created under a Central Act, no permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, is required. 6. This petition has been contested and according to the respondents there was no order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of permission to purchase the land. It was contended that the petitioner had filed an incomplete application to the Deputy Commissioner and a communication dated 04.04.2007 had been sent to the writ petitioner asking him to supply all the documents alongwith the check list. The petitioner has not supplied the documents and the application could not be decided. It is further submitted that the petitioner had wrongly made an averment that his application had been rejected. It was also contended that the dues of the State should take precedence over the dues of private individuals and, therefore, first right was of the State to recover its dues from the property of the erstwhile company, M/s United Ispat. 7. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, in its reply, has also taken a plea that when the charge is created by operation of law over any property, the charge will have precedence over an existing mortgage. 8. As far as the first contention is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the legal proposition that the dues of the State will take precedence over the dues of ordinary individuals or financial institutions. 8. As far as the first contention is concerned, there can be no quarrel with the legal proposition that the dues of the State will take precedence over the dues of ordinary individuals or financial institutions. The consensus of judicial opinion is that arrears of tax due to the State claim priority over a private tax. This matter, in fact, stands decided by the Apex Court in Central Bank of India versus State of Kerala and others, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 94, wherein it was held as follows: “128. If the provisions of the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act are interpreted keeping in view the background and context in which these legislations were enacted and the purpose sought to be achieved by their enactment, it becomes clear that the two legislations, are intended to create a new dispensation for expeditious recovery of dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors and adjudication of the grievance made by any aggrieved person qua the procedure adopted by the banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors, but the provisions contained therein cannot be read as creating first charge in favour of banks, etc. 129. If Parliament intended to give priority to the dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors over the first charge created under State legislations then provisions similar to those contained in Section 14-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 11 (2) of the EPF Act, Section 74 (1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, Section 25 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Section 30 of the Gift Tax Act, and Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956 would have been incorporated in the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act.” 9. However, in this case, the situation is somewhat different. The petitioner was not the owner of the property. He purchased the property in a sale, which took place on 10th March, 2003. At that time, he was required to deposit 25% of the bid amount and the balance was to be paid within fifteen days thereafter. On the date when the sale took place, there was no entry in the revenue record regarding the attachment of this property by any authority. How could the petitioner have been aware that there were some recovery proceedings against the erstwhile company, M/s United Ispat. On the date when the sale took place, there was no entry in the revenue record regarding the attachment of this property by any authority. How could the petitioner have been aware that there were some recovery proceedings against the erstwhile company, M/s United Ispat. The sale had been conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and if there is nothing in the revenue record to indicate otherwise, the intending purchaser/buyer would be justified in believing that the title is free from doubt. In such cases where the petitioner has purchased the property and thereafter balance amount has been paid, it would be highly unjust to deprive the petitioner of his right which had fructified on the date of sale itself. 10. Having held so, this brings us to the next contention as to whether the petitioner requires permission to purchase the land or not. Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, reads as follows: 118. Transfer of land to non-agriculturists barred.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, contract, agreement, custom or usage for the time being in force, but save as otherwise provided in this chapter, no transfer of land (including sales in execution of decree of a civil court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue), by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease, mortgage with possession or creation of a tenancy shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to prohibit the transfer of land by any person in favour of— (a) a landless labourer; or (b) a landless person belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe; or (c) a village artisan; or (d) a landless person carrying on an allied agricultural pursuit; or (e) the State Government; or (f) a co-operative society or a bank; or (g) a person who has become non-agriculturist on account of the acquisition of his land for any public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; or (1 of 1894). (h) a non-agriculturist who purchases or intends to purchase land for the construction of a house or shop, or purchases a built up house or shop, from the Himachal Pradesh State Housing Board established under the Himachal Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1972 (10 of 1972), or from the Development Authority constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 ( 12 of 1977), or from any other statutory corporation set up under any State or Central enactment; or (i) a non-agriculturist with the permission of the State Government for the purpose that may be prescribed: Provided that a person who is non-agriculturist but purchases land with the permission of the State Government under clause (i) of this sub-section shall, irrespective of such permission, continue to be a non-agriculturist for the purposes of this Act: Provided further that a non-agriculturist in whose case permission to purchase land is granted by the State Government, shall put the land to such use for which the permission has been granted, within a period of two years or a further such period, not exceeding one year, as may be granted by the State Government to be counted from the day on which the deed covering the sale of the land is registered and if he fails to do so, the land so purchased by him shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. (3) No Registrar or the Sub-Registrar appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 shall register any document pertaining to a transfer of land, which is in contravention to sub-section (1) and such transfer shall be void abinitio and the land involved in such transfer, if made in contravention of sub-section (1), shall, together with structures, buildings or other attachments, if any, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances;(16 of 1908). Provided that the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar may register any transfer— (i) where the lease is made in relation to a part or whole of a building; or (ii) wherethe mortgage is made for procuring the loans for construction or improvements over the land either from the Government or from any other financial institution constituted or established under any law for the time being in force or recognized by the State Government. (4) It shall be lawful for the State Government to make use of the land which is vested or may be vested in it under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) for such purposes as it may deem fit to do so. Explanation—For the purpose of this section, the expression "land" shall include— (i) land, the classification of which has changed or has been caused to be changed to “Gair mumkin”, “Gain-mumkin Makan” or any other Gairmumkin land by whatever name called, during the past five year countable from the date of entry in the revenue records to this effect; (ii) land recorded as “Gair-mumkin”, “Gair-mumkin Makan” or any other Gair-mumkin land, by whatever name called in the revenue records, except constructed area which is not subservient to agriculture; and (iii) land which is a site of a building in a town or a village and is occupied or let out not for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture.” 11. This section leaves no manner of doubt that there can be no transfer of land including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for arrears of land revenue to a person who is not permitted to buy the same without permission of the State Government. Merely because the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been created by a Central Act does not mean that Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is not applicable. 12. In this behalf, it would also be pertinent to mention that the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act has received the assent of the President of India and was placed in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the provisions of the Debt Recovery Act have nothing to do with the sale and purchase of land in Himachal Pradesh. The H.P. Act is a special Act which will govern the field. Therefore, the sale in favour of the petitioner cannot be registered unless he takes permission from the State Government. 13. As noted above, on 24th March, 2008, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner in Court that the application made by the petitioner stood rejected. The reason of the rejection was not mentioned, but this Court has held that the rejection of the application gives rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order of rejection. The reason of the rejection was not mentioned, but this Court has held that the rejection of the application gives rise to a fresh cause of action. Therefore, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order of rejection. There is no order of rejection annexed with the present petition also. All that is annexed with the petition is a communication dated 11.01.2007, Annexure PT, whereby the petitioner has applied for permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Here also, the petitioner has made a misstatement because in this application, it is mentioned as follows: “I have been instructed by Hon'ble High Court to apply under Section 118 with your good offices for permission.........” 14. This Court had never instructed the petitioner to seek permission and he made a misstatement before the authorities in this behalf. It was the learned counsel for the petitioner, who, on 12.09.2006, had prayed that he may be permitted by the Court to make an application without prejudice to his rights. This application was not filed and on 19.12.2006, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, two weeks' further time was granted to file such an application. It was directed that if such application is filed by 8th January, 2007, the same shall be decided on or before 9th April, 2007. The matter was not disposed of and was kept pending, but on 24.03.2008, learned counsel made a statement that the application stands rejected. This statement was totally incorrect since communication dated 04.04.2007 sent on behalf of the Collector to the Attorney of the petitioner is that the application is incomplete and the annexure documents have not been annexed and the same may be submitted. It is true that some of the documents asked for cannot be supplied. The land has been sold in pursuance to the recovery proceedings and obviously there can be no agreement of sale or affidavit of the transferor. However, other documents are necessary and the non-agriculturist cannot be permitted to purchase land without permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 15. As far as the reliance of the petitioner on the communication dated 15th October, 2001 is concerned, that has no applicability in the facts of the present case and only relates to financial corporations. 15. As far as the reliance of the petitioner on the communication dated 15th October, 2001 is concerned, that has no applicability in the facts of the present case and only relates to financial corporations. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that even when a property is purchased in consequence of a Court decree or recovery of arrears of land revenue, then also the purchaser will have to be a Himachali agriculturist and a non-Himachali, non-agriculturist can purchase the property only with the permission of the State Government. Therefore, the second contention of the petitioner is rejected. 16. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions: That the petitioner must file a complete application for grant of permission within one month from today and the State Government shall decide whether permission should be granted to the petitioner or not within three months thereafter. In case, the petitioner does not file a complete application, it will be deemed that he is not interested in purchasing the land; 2. That the petitioner can make a proposal that he is setting up an industry in the area and, therefore, may be granted permission to purchase the property. This shall be considered by the State Government in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and a sympathetic view can be taken in view of the fact that the petitioner had paid the amount a long time back; 3. In case the petitioner does not apply within thirty days or in case the application of the petitioner is rejected, then the sale in favour of the petitioner shall deemed to be non est and thereafter, the property shall be put to sale again and since by now the charge of the State has been recorded, the dues of the State shall take precedence over the dues of the Bank. If the sale takes place, then the amount paid by the petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% per annum shall first be paid to him and out of the excess amount, if any, the dues of the State shall have first precedence and thereafter the dues of the Banks shall be paid.