ORDER : Narinder Chauhan, Financial Commissioner This revision petition under Section-118 (3-c) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, has been filed against the orders, of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, who in appeal No. 61/2005, vide order dated 30.07.2011, upheld the orders of District Collector Kangra, dated 15.12.2004, vide which no cognizance of an alleged violation of Section 110 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, was taken against the present respondents. 2. The Ld. Divisional Commissioner, held that District Collector, Kangra, has correctly dismissed the application of the present appellant, on the grounds that a compromise was entered into between the appellant and the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court, and the principles of res-judicata and estoppel are attracted. The case file reveals that Hon'ble High Court in RSA No. 412/1992, vide its order dated, July 10, 1996, directed that the present respondent, who was appellant in the RSA, and was in occupation of a shop in question, was prepared to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the plaintiff/present petitioner for the purchase of the said shop, and directed that the present respondent shall pay to the plaintiff/present petitioner, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on or before 10th of November, 1996, and the plaintiff/present petitioner shall be bound to get the sale deed registered. Both the parties gave an undertaking before the Hon'ble High Court, to be bound by their statements and also committed to the execution of the said sale deed. Ld. Divisional Commissioner, therefore, held that the matter having been settled in a compromise between the parties before the H.P. High Court, the Revenue Courts did not enjoy jurisdiction in the matter. 3. In the revision petition, the petitioner has made the following grounds:- (i) That the order of Collector Kangra, dated 15.12.2004, passed on an application dated 9.02.2001 and 11.12.2003, and orders of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra dated 30.07.2011, are contrary to law, facts and merits of the case. 3. In the revision petition, the petitioner has made the following grounds:- (i) That the order of Collector Kangra, dated 15.12.2004, passed on an application dated 9.02.2001 and 11.12.2003, and orders of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra dated 30.07.2011, are contrary to law, facts and merits of the case. (ii) That the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, dated 10.07.1996, referred to in the impugned orders have no application in the instant case, as the said orders pertain to a suit for the ejectment of respondent No. 2, from a Gairmumkin shop, which was under his occupation and not qua any agricultural land purchased in Mohal Jassoor and in Mohal Bhalloon, in violation of the basic provisions contained in Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (No. 8 of 1974). According to which statute, even a decree of the Court cannot override the provisions of the Statute. (iii) That the respondents are non-Himachali and non-agriculturist, and they have admitted this fact in the Civil Court in case No 39/ 2003, titled Mandir Bhagwati Devi v. Dharam Paul, and also before Ld. Civil Judge Sr. Division, Nurpur, in case titled Govind Singh Pathania v. Dharma Paul. That they belong to Punjab and do not own any agricultural and other land, house, or shop in Himachal Pradesh, prior to 1978. (iv) That respondent was only a tenant of a Gairmumkin shop belonging to the petitioner, which shop is situated at Mohal Jassoor, Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra. The petitioner filed a suit for ejectment against the respondent for the shop in the Civil Court at Nurpur. That an appeal being preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree against him, a compromise was arrived at on account of financial hardship, faced by the petitioner and that the respondent on becoming the owner does not acquire the status of agriculturist, as no dispute qua the agricultural land was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. (v) That the respondents in connivance with Revenue Authorities purchased agricultural and vide mutation No. 453 dated 09.06.1981, measuring 13 kanals 13 marlas in Mohal Bhalloon, Mauza Thora Bhalloon as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79. Further, an additional 2 kanal 17 marlas, was again purchased vide sale deed document No. 804 dated 01.08.1980. Further, an additional 2 kanal 17 marlas, was again purchased vide sale deed document No. 804 dated 01.08.1980. It has been stated that all such sale deeds are void ab-initio and even the mutation sanctioned as such oh the basis of sale deeds are contrary to law, having been based on void and illegal transactions. 4. It has, therefore, been prayed that the orders of District Collector and Ld. Divisional Commissioner, be set aside, as the orders are neither speaking orders and lands purchased by the respondent in contravention of the provisions of law have not been adjudicated upon or any finding given even in the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, dated 10.07.1996. Therefore, reference to the judgment dated 10.07.1996, in the impugned orders of the revenue Courts below are wrong. It has therefore been prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and directions be given to. Collector, Kangra, to initiate benami proceedings against tie respondents under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 5. I have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties, Sh. Y.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 and his wife are non-agriculturists, and Sh. Dhararn Paul, (respondent) belongs to Punjab and has purchased 13 kanals 13 marlas land in Nurpur during 1978, bearing khasra Nos. are 1013,1014,1015 (new) and he further purchased more land in 1992. Fie averred that the basic dispute was between Dharam Paul and the Temple over a shop, which is in possession of Dharam Paul; that the petitioner (Kundan Lal) Mohatmim, filed a suit for eviction of the shop which is 12 Ft. X 6 Ft. That the respondent does not become an agriculturist by purchasing this shop. He cited Charanjit Rai Manvah v. State of H.P. and another, [2003(1) Cur. LJ (HP), page 516], wherein it has been held that Section 118 of the 1972 Act, prohibits transfer of land by any mode including sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage, in favour of a person who is not a agriculturist within the State of H.P. Therefore, the argument is that lands acquired prior to the compromise before the H.P. High Court decision, dated 10.07.1996, are required to be investigated being violation of Section 118. 6. ha response Counsel for the respondent Sh. 6. ha response Counsel for the respondent Sh. Rahul Gupta, has contended that the transactions entered into by the respondent are prior to amendments made to the said Act, and in support has quoted Santosh Malhotra v. State of H.P., CLJ (2004). 7. On a careful consideration of the arguments and pleadings, made by both the parties, it is clear that the Revenue Courts have simply passed orders based only on the compromise entered into between the parties before the Hon'ble High Court during 1996. The said compromise related to a shop and not qua agricultural lands. Even otherwise, transactions entered into prior to the amendment of Act No. 9 of 1997, or amendment Act No. 6 of 1995, the decision has to be seen vis-a-vis the law prevailing at that time. Apparently, the law at the time of the alleged purchase of the agricultural lands by the petitioner was as follows: - "Section 118 of the Act as amended and as in force at the time of filing of the Charge sheet reads as under. "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 a 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." 8. The citation of Santosh Malhotra v. State of H.P., cannot apply in the present esse, as in that case Hon'ble Justice Mr. L.S. Panta, held that the Power of Attorney which was executed on 07.11.1991, is an execution prior to the amendments carried out to the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, which came into force vide Act No. 9 of 1997, on 03.05.1997. Even otherwise, a reading of Section 118, whether prior or after the amendment clearly stipulates that no land as such can be transferred even through process of sales entered into while executing any decree of a Civil Courts or for recovery of arrears of land revenue. Even otherwise, a reading of Section 118, whether prior or after the amendment clearly stipulates that no land as such can be transferred even through process of sales entered into while executing any decree of a Civil Courts or for recovery of arrears of land revenue. Therefore, there is merit in the plea of the petitioner and the case ought to be remanded back to the Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala, with a view to examine the follows: - (a) Whether the respondents or his wife are agriculturist in Himachal Pradesh and enjoying such status at the time of coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975. (b) To examine the case vis-a-vis the 2nd proviso of Section 118, which reads as follows: - "Provided that a person who is non-agriculturist but purchase land either under [clause (dd) or clause (g)] or with the permission granted under clause (h) of this sub-section shall, irrespective of such purchase of land, continue to be a non-agriculturist for the purpose of this Act." 9. Therefore, even if the respondent No. 2 has purchased the shop in accordance with Hon'ble H.P. High Court order, dated 10.07.1996, the same cannot condone land transactions entered into prior to amendments made to the Act. Provisions of Section 118, in fact debars transfer of land by various modes and the 2nd proviso stipulates that irrespective of permission accorded in favour of any person to purchase land under Section 118(2), his status as a non-agriculturist will continue for the purpose of this Act. The revision is accordingly accepted, and case remanded back to District Collector, Kangra with above observations. 10. Announced in open Court on 22.11.2013 at Dharamshala. The record of the Courts below be returned and the file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.