ORDER : Shri Narinder Chauhan, I.A.S. - These two revision petitions have been preferred under section 118(3-C) of the H P. Tenancy & and Reforms Act, 1972, against the order dated 27.7.2009, passed in appeal no. 122/2006, whereby the appeal of the present respondent no.1 Phool Prakash (now deceased) has been accepted by setting aside the order of the Id. Distt. Collector, Solan dated 1.5.2006, passed in case no. 60/13 who ordered to vest the land bearing khasra no. 28/1, measuring 0-5 biswas, situated in Mauza Kumharda, Tehsil kasauli, Distt. Solan, H.P. along with structure in the State of H.P. in violation of provisions of section 118 of the Act. Since, these two revision petitions are based on the same order of the Commissioner and the facts and circumstances of the cases are also the same, therefore, both these petitions have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this single order. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that land bearing khasra no. 28, measuring 1-13 bighas, situated in village Kumharda, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan, was owned by Shri Deep Ram predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Shri Ram Dass. Out of this land, an area measuring 0-5 biswa, bearing khasra no. 28/1, was sold to Shri Phool Prakash Bakshi respondent no 1, a non-agriculturist, who has constructed a two storeyed house thereon without seeking the prior permission/approval of the State Government as required under section 118 of the Act Proceedings under the said section were initiated by the Collector, Distt. Solan and ex-parte order was passed on 22.1.1999, in Case No. 32/ 13 of 1997, vide which the said land was ordered to be vested in the State of H.P. 3. The present respondent no. 1 filed an appeal against the above order dated 22.1.1999, passed by the Distt. Collector, Solan, before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who vide order dated 8.5.2000, passed in rev. appeal No. 183/1999, remanded the case back to the Collector for fresh decision. On remand, the Id. Collector, Solan, re-registered the case bearing no. 60/13 of 2000, and after hearing the parties and recording their statements as well as of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that there is a violation of provision of section 118 of the Act. The Id Collector, vide order dated 1.5.2006, passed in case no. 60/13 of 2000, ordered to vest the land bearing khasra no. 60/13 of 2000, and after hearing the parties and recording their statements as well as of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that there is a violation of provision of section 118 of the Act. The Id Collector, vide order dated 1.5.2006, passed in case no. 60/13 of 2000, ordered to vest the land bearing khasra no. 28/1, measuring 0-5 biswas of aforesaid revenue estate along with structure in the State of H.P. free from all encumbrances. 4. Shri Phool Prakash Bakshi (now deceased) and his wife Smt Kamlesh Bakshi present respondents no. 1, 2, challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla division, who accepted the same vide order dated 27.7.2C09, passed in appeal no. 122/2006, observing that "..as no case of violation under section 118 of the Act has been substantiated before this court. Hence, the order of the lower court vide which the land bearing khasra no. 28/1, measuring 0-5 biswas along with structure situated in Mauza Kumharda Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan is ordered to be vested in the State of H.P, is now ordered to be set aside". 5. Against the order dated 27.7.2009 of the Id. Commissioner, Shimla division, passed in appeal no. 122/2006 these two separate revision petitions have been filed before this court, i.e. one by Shri Ram Das registered as Revision Petition no. 170/2009 titled as Ram Dass v. Phool Prakash & Ors and another by the State of H.P., registered as Revision petition No. 57/2010 titled as State of H.P. v. Phool Prakash & Other. 6. During the pendency of the case, Shri Phool Prakash Bakshi, respondent no. 1 has expired and therefore, his LRs have been brought on record vide CMA Nos. 42/15, 43/15, 95/15 and 96/15 filed by the LRs of the deceased as well as by the petitioners. 7. The grounds taken by Shri Ram Dass, petitioner in his revision petition no. 170/ 2009, are that the respondent no. 1 has raised construction of a house without prior approval of the State Government of H.P. and occupied the land, therefore, the land was liable to be vested in the State of H.P. which order was correctly passed by the respondent no. 3(Distt. Collector, Solan). 170/ 2009, are that the respondent no. 1 has raised construction of a house without prior approval of the State Government of H.P. and occupied the land, therefore, the land was liable to be vested in the State of H.P. which order was correctly passed by the respondent no. 3(Distt. Collector, Solan). However, the learned appellate court below by coming to the findings contrary to the material on record has committed grave illegality, therefore, the impugned order as passed is liable to be set aside. It has been further contended that the Commissioner has wrongly come to the conclusion that the possession of the respondent no. 1 is not established on record. In this regard the petitioner has submitted that it is established on record by the Statements of PW - 1 and PW - 2 as well as other material placed on record that the respondent no. 1 is in possession of the land in dispute and he has carried out the construction of the house, even this has not been disputed by the respondent no. 1. Further averred that the respondents have got their electricity, water and elephone connections installed in the building as well as they have got themselves registered as voters in Mauza Kumharda of Tehsil Kasauli Distt. Solan. H.P. 8. In revision petition no. 57/2010, filed by the State of H.P. it has been contended that the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent no. 1, who is a non - Agriculturist of H.P., constructed the two storey house on the land comprised in khasra no. 28/1 measuring 0-3 biswas without seeking the prior approval of the State Government and has thus violated the provisions of Section 118 of the Act, which is proved from the report of Patwari dated 4.6.1994, and also further confirmed from Statement of Shri Babu Ram Patwari given before the Collector. It has been further averred that the Id. Commissioner has wrongly disbelieved the facts that the present respondents no. 1 and 2 had failed to produce the agriculturist certificate;. Mere applying for permission from his department to purchase the land, did not make him eligible for purchasing the land; in fact Superintendent of Police had permitted him to purchase land which is not the permission of Government under section 118 of the Act. 1 and 2 had failed to produce the agriculturist certificate;. Mere applying for permission from his department to purchase the land, did not make him eligible for purchasing the land; in fact Superintendent of Police had permitted him to purchase land which is not the permission of Government under section 118 of the Act. Further asserted that the Commissioner has wrongly held that the State has failed to prove the possession of the present respondents and transfer of land in the name of present respondents despite the fact that report of revenue field agency which is on record verifying that the respondents no. 1 and 2 have constructed a two storeyed house. It has further been asserted that there is an agreement dated 11.2.1991, and the respondents themselves have admitted the fact that they have purchased the land, as such, the order of the Id. Commissioner is liable to be set aside. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for Ram Dass and Id. Dy. D.A.(Rev), appearing on behalf the State. The LRs of the deceased Shri Phool Prakash Bakshi, have filed written submission through their attorney. 10. Shri Pawan Kapraite, counsel for Shri Ram Dass, has argued that it cannot be said that order is against a dead person. Further averred that once non - agriculturist raises construction in violation of provisions of section 118 of the Act, it should be vested in State Government. Ld. counsel, therefore added that the findings of the Id. Commissioner are contrary to its own observations. 11. In written argument on behalf of behalf of d respondents, Smt. Bindu Bakshi attorney of LRs of late Shri Phool Prakash Bakshi, has submitted that her father Shri Phool Parkash had joined the Punjab Police in the year 1960 and after re-organization of Punjab & Haryana States on 1.11.1966, had migrated to H.P. He had retired as Dy. Superintendent of Police from H.P. State on 30.11.1999, therefore, he and his wife Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi, both were bona fide Himachali and getting pension from State Government. Further it has been stated that Shri Phool Parkash was residing in H.P. well before 1972 and entitled to purchase the land for residential purpose without permission of State Government, however, he took permission to purchase 0-8 biswas of land from competent authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Distt. Bilaspur in the year 1992. Further it has been stated that Shri Phool Parkash was residing in H.P. well before 1972 and entitled to purchase the land for residential purpose without permission of State Government, however, he took permission to purchase 0-8 biswas of land from competent authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Distt. Bilaspur in the year 1992. That a power of attorney was given by Shri Deep Ram to Smt. Kamal Bakshi of the land over which the present house has been constructed. It has also been contended that Shri Phool Parkash had also applied for Ex-post facto permission to purchase land for residential house Under Section 118 of the Act on 11.09.2000, in the Court of Distt Collector, Solan, but his case was neither forwarded to the Govt of H.P. nor rejected That the Id. Collector has decided the case on 1.5.2006, without giving due opportunity to them. That after the order of the Id. Commissioner, dated 27.7.2009, Shri Phool Parkash Bakshi sent an application to the Distt. Collector, Solan on 25.8.2009, for granting ex-post facto sanction to purchase land for residential house, but the D.C.Solan vide its letter dated 22.09.2009, informed him to apply fresh application to take permission. Lastly, it has been submitted by Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi widow of late Shri Phool Parkash that her husband has faced this litigation for long and he has four daughters and a son, who have submitted that even if there has been a mistake for not applying before purchase there ought not to be any limitation in granting ex-post fact sanction in the circumstances which prevails in our case, and in case at this stage their case is turned down, it will cause a great injustice and will all be thrown on roads as they have no other house in H.P. 12. On perusal of the record of the Distt. Collector, Solan, it is clear that Shri Deep Ram predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner entered into an agreement on 11th February, 1991 with (i) Shri Phool Parkash Bakshi, son of Shri Yog Raj Bakshi, residents of Ambala City No.1, Haryana (ii) Shri Ram Nand Yadav son of Shri Nar Singh Yadav, resident of Nanga Harnath, Tehsil & Distt. Mohindergarh, Haryana, (iii) Shri Anoop Singh, No. 303, C/o Police Station, Kandaghat, (iv) Shri Krishan Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Dhalli, (v) Shri Mukesh Bakshi, c/o Police Station Dhaili, to sell land comprised in khata/khatauni no. Mohindergarh, Haryana, (iii) Shri Anoop Singh, No. 303, C/o Police Station, Kandaghat, (iv) Shri Krishan Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Dhalli, (v) Shri Mukesh Bakshi, c/o Police Station Dhaili, to sell land comprised in khata/khatauni no. 7/8 min, khasra no. 28, area measuring 1-13 bighas, situated in mauza Kumharda, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan (available at page 37 to 42 of the file of Collector, Solan). It has been specifically stated in the said agreement that the purchasers are non agriculturist hence the sale deed cannot be got executed in their favour. So, the purchasers would apply to the State Government of Himachal Pradesh for the grant of necessary permission to purchase the above mentioned land and after obtaining the necessary permission the purchasers will intimate the seller and the sale deed shall be executed within 15 days of the receipt of necessary permission. Further perusal of this case file (pages 43 to 46) transpires that on the same date, out of this land, Shri Deep Ram had also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Kamal Bakshi wife of Shri Phool Parkash Bakshi, bearing khasra no. 28/1, measuring 1-0 bigha. From the contents of the aforesaid agreement, it transpires that the respondents (Phool Parkash Bakshi) & others, had no intention to skip or bye pass the provisions of Section 118 of the Act because they have made a specific mention in the agreement that the purchasers, being non-agriculturists, will obtain necessary permission of the State Government. Moreover, the respondent (Phool Parkash Bakshi) had applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan on 11.9.2000 and 25.8 2009 for permission under section 118 of the Act. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of execution of agreement between the parties, there was no such bar in section 118 of the Act to put a non-agriculturist in possession of land on the basis of an agreement or power of attorney. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of execution of agreement between the parties, there was no such bar in section 118 of the Act to put a non-agriculturist in possession of land on the basis of an agreement or power of attorney. The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 118 of the Act at that time were as follows:- "118 (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." Since, the sale deed has not been registered so far, it could not be termed as transfer of land as per provisions applicable at that time. The predecessors-in-interest of both the private parties, had simply entered into an agreement of sale. But, it is surprising to see that the present petitioner Shri Ram Dass, whose father Shri Deep Ram, might have received the entire consideration amount before handing over the possession to respondent (Phool Parkash Bakshi), has preferred this revision petition challenging the orders of Id. Commissioner which are in favour of the respondents. In another case filed by Smt. Silma Rani w/o late Shri Krishan Kumar, whose husband Shri Krishan Kumar, was one of the part (purchaser) in the aforesaid agreement and has also constructed a residential house over the land in question, the present petitioner Shri Ram Dass, has stated that Shri Krishan Kumar is his tenant. This shows that the contention of Shri Ram Dass, is net beyond the shadow of doubt and as such, I am of the opinion that a person who has served in the State for such a long period or his family should not be thrown on the road on the malicious contention of the such a person who has already grabbed money for his land. Moreover, the vestment of land in favour the State Government will not benefit the seller or his legal heir, in any manner. 14. Moreover, the vestment of land in favour the State Government will not benefit the seller or his legal heir, in any manner. 14. Further, if statement of objects and reasons behind section 118 is gone through, the main objective behind enactment of section 118 of the Act, is to protect the farmers of the State from exploitation of moneyed non-agriculturist class. But in the instant case, it appears that a person (non-agriculturist), who has served in the State for more than 35 years and his legal heirs are being harassed by the agriculturist, under the guise of the aforesaid section, which can never be the intention of the legislature. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion. I am of the view that the Id. Commissioner, Shimla Division, has adjudicated the matter in the right perspective keeping in view the spirit of the Act whereas the Id Collector, District Solan, has failed to do so. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed in the interest Of justice. 16. However, in case the provisions of the sub-section(l) of section 118 of the Act as amended in year 1994-95 or as existing now, which bars transfer of land, including transfer by way of an authorisation made by the owner by way of Special or General Power of Attorney or by an agreement with the intention to put a non-agriculturist in possession of the land and allow him to deal with the land in the like manner as if, he is a real owner of that land, has been violated by putting a non agriculturist in possession of land on the basis of an agreement, are strictly interpreted, in that case, the present transactions would come under the ambit of violation of the said provisions. Even in that case, I am of the firm view that such transactions are not in violation of the spirit of the Act and the State Govt. being a functionary/machinery of the welfare State, may consider such cases sympatheticaiiy for granting necessary permission, so that the innocent persons are not harassed under the grab of this section which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Hence, the respondents may apply to the State Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for seeking permission under section 118 of the Act for the purpose. Both the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. 17. Orders be communicated to the parties. Hence, the respondents may apply to the State Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Solan for seeking permission under section 118 of the Act for the purpose. Both the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. 17. Orders be communicated to the parties. The records of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.