JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. The petitioner, by means of this petition, has prayed for the grant of following reliefs: “i) To direct the respondent to not impose the condition of grant of permission under Sec. 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act on the petitioner trust formed by the agriculturists and bonafide of Himachal Pradesh. ii)To declare the implementation of Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act read with Section 38-A of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules on the agriculturists who use their land for any other activity other than agriculture, as null and void.” 2.The main thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that since the promoters of the petitioner society are agriculturists and bonafide residents of Himachal Pradesh and the petitioner Society has been set up to advance education and is not a profit making society, no permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act should be required for the society to purchase the land. 3. We are not at all in agreement with this submission. The Society is an independent juristic entity. If two or more agriculturists come together to set up a partnership, a Company, a Society or any other body which is a separate juristic entity then this separate entity has its own existence and rights. This separate entity cannot be termed to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the mere fact that the promoters of this entity are agriculturists will not clothe the separate entity with the classification of agriculturist. Such a separate entity, therefore, must obtain permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act before purchasing any land. If we were to accept the submission of the petitioner then unscrupulous agriculturists may set up such societies, companies, partnership firms etc. and transfer the shares of the Companies or the interest in the society to non-agriculturists and this would be an easy way of circumventing the law which cannot be permitted. 4. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.