JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Solan, H.P. dated 22.8.2005, passed in Case No. 35 FT/13 of 2005. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that one Mr. U.N.Sharma, was owner of certain property situated in village Nihara, Pargana Chail, Tehsil Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, H.P. This property was purchased in the year 1980 by Jagdish Singh Dhillon, Kuldeepak Singh Dhillon and Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur through separate sale deeds in equal shares. These purchasers were non-agriculturists in the State of H.P. but they obtained permission of the State Government to purchase the property. Jagdish Singh Dhillon died and his share devolved on Kuldeepak Singh Dhillon. Thus, proforma respondent Kuldeepak Singh Dhillon became owner to the extent of ½ share and the remaining 1/3rd share belonged to Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur. She died after executing a Will of her property in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, namely, Ms. R.K.Chahal (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). The Will has been implemented so far as the property situated in Punjab is concerned, but mutation of Lakhbir Singh Kaur’s estate in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property was rejected. An appeal was preferred against rejection before the Sub Divisional Collector which also stood dismissed. 3. Respondent-defendant Jasmeet Kaur, daughter of late Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur, has admitted the execution of alleged Will by her mother/attestator. The learned trial Court issued notice to the Collector, Solan since exemption was sought by alleging that the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act were not applicable in the present case. The State Government did not dispute the fact that late Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur has executed the Will in favour of plaintiff, however, disputed the Will on the ground that plaintiff being non-agriculturist in suit property, mutation could not be sanctioned in her favour. 4. The issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, H.P. on 22.11.2002. He dismissed the suit on 31.12.2004. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Solan, H.P. It was allowed on 22.8.2005. 5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 3.3.2006: “1. Divn.), Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, H.P. on 22.11.2002. He dismissed the suit on 31.12.2004. The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Solan, H.P. It was allowed on 22.8.2005. 5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 3.3.2006: “1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court is against the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act?” 6. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General for the appellant, on the basis of substantial question of law, has vehemently argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court is against the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972. On the other hand, Mr. K.D.Sood, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate for the respective respondents, have supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 8 It is not in dispute that the land initially belonged to one Mr. U.N.Sharma. It was purchased by Jagdish Singh Dhillon, Kuldeepak Singh Dhillon and Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur through separate sale deeds. They were non-agriculturists. They have sought the permission of the State Government to purchase the property under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972. 9. Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur executed Will Ext. PW-2/A on 7.5.1995. Para 3 of the Will reads as under: “3. I own 1/3 share in orchard land and house at Village Nihara, Tehsil Kandaghat, Distt. Solan (H.P.). The house is on rent with family friend Ms. Rupinder Kaur Chahal since 1.6.1991. After my father’s death on 31.8.1991 Ms. R.K. Chahal has stood by me as a sister during criminal and civil litigation started by Smt. Hardev Kaur, my brother’s estranged wife and her sons. Out of love and affection for Ms. R.K. Chahal, I bequeath my 1/3 share in orchard land and house to her.” 10. Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur died on 8.6.1995 at Village Nihara. R.K. Chahal has stood by me as a sister during criminal and civil litigation started by Smt. Hardev Kaur, my brother’s estranged wife and her sons. Out of love and affection for Ms. R.K. Chahal, I bequeath my 1/3 share in orchard land and house to her.” 10. Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur died on 8.6.1995 at Village Nihara. The plaintiff made a report to Patwari Halqua Nihara and disclosed that Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur has executed Will in her favour and by virtue of that Will, she has inherited the share of Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur in property situated in village Nihara. The Patwari Halqua Nihara, entered the mutation and Ms. R.K. Chahal appeared before the learned Asstt. Collector, IInd Grade at Village Nihara and Dr. Jasmeet Kaur Sandhu also appeared and confirmed the genuineness of the Will and stated before the Learned Asstt. Collector that she has no objection to the rightful implementation of her mother’s Will in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff remained under bonafide belief that the mutation has already been sanctioned in her favour on the basis of Will, however, she came to know from Patwari Halqua, Nihara in the year 2000 that mutation was rejected and her name has not been incorporated in the revenue record. She preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Kandaghat on 8.1.2001. She also filed an application for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned, however, the appeal, so preferred was dismissed on 21.9.2001 vide Ext. PW-1/A. 11. In Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, for sub sections (1) and (2), by way of Amendment Act, 1994, the following was substituted, namely: “Amendment of Section 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 transfer by a decree of a civil court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue) by way of sale, gift, will, exchange, lease, mortgage with possession, creation of a tenancy or in any other manner shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression “transfer of land” shall include,- (a) a benami transaction in which land is transferred to an agriculturist for a consideration paid or provided by a non-agriculturist; and (b) an authorization made by the owner by way of special or general power of attorney or by an agreement with the intention to put 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. (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 a scheduled tribe; or (c) a village artisan; or (d) a land less person carrying on an allied pursuit; (e) the State Government or Central Government, or a Government Company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act,1956 or a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 or a statutory body or Corporation or Board established by or under a statute and owned and controlled by the State or Central Government; (f) a person who has become non-agriculturist on account of- (i) acquisition of his land for any public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; or (g) 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 and Urban Development Authority, established under the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority Act,2004, or from the Development Authority constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act,1977 or from any other statutory Corporation set up for framing and execution of house accommodation schemes in the State under any State or Central enactment, or (h) a non-agriculturist with the permission of the State Government for the purposes that may be prescribed: Provided that that a person who is non-agriculturist but purchases land either under clause (g) or with the permission granted under clause (h) of this sub-section shall, irrespective of such purchase of land, continue to be non-agriculturist for the purposes of this Act: Provided further that a non-agriculturist who purchases land under or in whose case permission to purchase land is granted under clause (h) of this sub-section 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 allowed by the State Government for reasons to be recorded in writing, to be counted from the day on which the sale deed of land is registered and if he fails to do so or diverts, without the permission of the State Government, the said use for any other purpose or transfer by way of sale, gift or otherwise, the land so purchased by him shall, in the prescribed manner, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances;” 12. Another amendment was carried out vide Act No. 9 of 1997, whereby explanation in Section 118 of the principal Act (i) in sub section (1), the following was substituted: “Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression “transfer of land” shall not include,- (i) transfer by way of inheritance; (ii) transfer by way of gift made or will executed, in favour of any or all legal heirs of the donor or the testator, as the case may be; (iii) transfer by way of lease of land or building in a municipal area; but shall include- (a) a benami transaction in which land is transferred to an agriculturist for a consideration paid or provided by a non-agriculturist; and (b) an authorization made by the owner by way of special or general power of attorney or by an agreement with the intention to put 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. (ii) in sub-section (2)- (a) after clause (d), the following clause (dd) was inserted, namely:- “(dd) a person who, on commencement of this Act worked and continues to work for gain in an estate situated in Himachal Pradesh; for the construction of a dwelling house, shop, or commercial establishment in a municipal area, subject to the condition that the land to be transferred does not exceed:- (i) in case of dwelling house - 500 square metres; and (ii) in the case of shop or commercial establishment – 300 square metres: Provided that such person does not own any vacant land or a dwelling house in a municipal area in the State; (b) in clause (e) before the words “or a statutory body”, the words “or a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, for which land is acquired through the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894” was inserted; (c) for clause (f), the following clause was substituted, namely:- “(f) a person who has become non-agriculturist on account of- (i) acquisition of his land for any public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; or (ii) vestment of his land in the tenants under this Act; or”; (d) in the first proviso, for words, brackets and alphabet “clause (g)” the words, brackets and alphabets “clause (dd) or clause (g)” was substituted; (e) in the second proviso after the word “non-agriculturist”, the words, brackets and alphabets “who purchases land under clause (dd) or” was added;” 13. It is clear from the plain language of second proviso of Section 118(2)(h) of the Act that the non-agriculturist who purchases land under clause (dd) or in whose case permission to purchase land was granted under clause (h) of the Section 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, or as may be allowed by the State Government, for the reasons to be recorded in writing to be counted from the day on which the sale deed of land is registered and if he fails to do so or diverts, without the permission of the State Government, the said user for any other purpose or transfer by way of sale, gift or otherwise, the land so purchased by him shall, in the prescribed manner, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 14. Para 8.27 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual provides as to how a Revenue Officer shall record entry of transfer of land in favour of a non-agriculturist, so that mistake may not happen to consider the status of the said person. It provides: “Purchase of agricultural land by a non-agriculturist with or without permission of the State Govt. under section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 does not confer a title of an agriculturist on the purchaser and such a purchaser shall continue to be a non-agriculturist even thereafter under section 118 ibid. In order to ensure that this express provision of law is not infringed by anybody in the State wittingly or unwittingly, it is necessary that while sanctioning mutation in respect of such purchases of land, the Revenue Officer should invariably record in mutation that despite of such purchase of agricultural land and his subsequent cultivation of such land, the purchaser will continue to be treated as a non-agriculturist. Similarly a note to this fact shall always be recorded in the Remarks Column of Jamabandis concerning the lands by the patwari and which will be checked by Field Kanungo (Himachal Pradesh Govt. letter No. 2f (2)-7/87-Vol-III, dated 27th September, 1989).” 15. The duty of the Sub-Registrar is given in rule 38(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975, which read as follows: “Where a transfer of land by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage with possession requiring compulsory registration under the Registration Act, (16 of 1908) in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist as defined in the Act, such a person intending to acquire land by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage with possession, shall file an affidavit along with the registration deed before the Sub- Registrar or Registrar, as the case may be, to the effect that such a person is eligible to secure the transfer of land in his favour. The Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, as the case may be, shall satisfy himself by such an inquiry as he deems fit that such a person is eligible to get the land under the aforesaid sub-section and only then register the document presented to him for registration, otherwise the registration of deed shall be refused.” 16. The Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, as the case may be, shall satisfy himself by such an inquiry as he deems fit that such a person is eligible to get the land under the aforesaid sub-section and only then register the document presented to him for registration, otherwise the registration of deed shall be refused.” 16. The manner in which the application has to be preferred by the non-agriculturist intending to acquire land in his name by way of sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage with possession, is provided under Rule 38A. Smt. Lakhbir Singh Kaur has purchased the land after the permission of the State Government. She has executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 7.5.1995. According to the language employed in Section 118 (2) (h) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, expressions used are “sale, gift or otherwise”. There is no mention of “will”. The Legislature has used the expression “will” where it was required in Section 118(1) but has not used the expression “will” in second proviso of Section 118(2) (h). The H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was further amended by way of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997, whereby in sub Section (1) of Section 118, for the explanation, the following was ordered to be substituted, namely: “Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression “transferor land” shall not include: (i) transfer by way of inheritance; (ii) transfer by way of gift made or Will executed, in favour of any or all legal heirs of the donor or the testator, as the case may be; (iii) transfer by way of lease of land or building in a municipal area;……..” 17. Thus, it can be inferred that the non-agriculturist who has been granted permission to buy the land could execute the Will in favour of the non-agriculturist without the permission of the State Government. Even in Rule 38(2), whereby the duties of Sub-Registrar and Registrar have been defined, the expression used are “sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage with possession” and not “Will”. Moreover, practical view has to be taken for the simple reason that if the permission is granted by the State Government to a non-agriculturist to buy the land in the State of H.P., he/she would be permitted to keep with him/her the same till life and thereafter, as argued by Mr. Moreover, practical view has to be taken for the simple reason that if the permission is granted by the State Government to a non-agriculturist to buy the land in the State of H.P., he/she would be permitted to keep with him/her the same till life and thereafter, as argued by Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, permission is required to be obtained. This is not the intention of all the provisions and rules read together. Once the land has been permitted to be purchased by a non-agriculturist, the same is inheritable by general law. 18. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court dated 22.8.2005 is upheld but for different reasons, as noticed hereinabove. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 19. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.