JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The writ petitioners, are, seeking, the, quashing of order borne in Annexure P6, and, also espouse relief for the respective quashing, of, Annexure P8, and, of Annexure P10, (i) whereunder(s) the writ property was ordered, to vest, free from all encumbrances, in, the State of Himachal Pradesh, vestment whereof, is, sparked by a two storied building, existing upon khasra No. 744/238, (ii) without prior thereto, the, apt statutory permission, as enjoined by Section 118, of, the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, being sought by respondent No.3, (iii) the respondent No.3 expending money, for, raising construction, and, his being in possession thereof. 2. One Roshan Lal is reflected, in the revenue records, to be the owner in possession of land, measuring 3 biswas, borne in khasra No. 744/238, and, in respect thereof, he had entered into an agreement/contract of sale, with respondent No.3, agreement whereof, is borne in Ext. RW1/A, exhibit whereof is borne, upon, the records of the authorities concerned. There occurs a clear disclosure, therein, qua only subsequent to a valid apt permission being granted, by the statutory authority concerned, (iv) thereupon alone, respondent No.3, evidently a nonagriculturist, being statutorily empowered, to, execute a registered deed of conveyance, visavis, the land borne, in, khasra No. 744/238, with, one Roshan Lal, (v) there is also a clear display therein, that till the apt statutory permission stands granted, thereupto, the, physical possession, of, land borne in Ext. RW1/A, being rather retained by aforesaid Roshan Lal, (vi) however, with respondent No. 3''s application, for statutory permission being granted, visavis, him for the relevant purpose, being, still pending, one Dharamvir, made, a complaint before the statutory authority concerned qua the land borne, in the apt khasra number, rather standing subjected to construction, and, thereupon the mandate, of, Section 118, of, the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: "[118. Transfer of land to nonagriculturists barred. Transfer of land to nonagriculturists 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 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. Explanation. For the purpose of this subsection, 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 nonagriculturist; and (b) 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 nonagriculturist 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 subsection (1) shall be deemed to prohibit the transfer of land by any person in favour of (a) a landless laborer; 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 [(dd) a person who, on commencement of this Act, worked and continues to work for gain in a 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 a dwelling house500 square meters; and (ii) in the case of a shop or commercial establishment300 square meters: Provided that such person does not own any vacant land or a dwelling house in a municipal area in the State.] (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 for which land is acquired through the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894] or a statutory body or a corporation or a board established by or under a statute and owned and controlled by the State of Central Government; or [(f) a person who has become nonagriculturist 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] (g) a nonagriculturist 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 Housing and Urban Development Authority, established under the Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Act, 2004, or from the Development Authority constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 or from any other statutory Corporation setup for framing and execution of house accommodation schemes in the States under any State or Central enactment]; or (h) a nonagriculturist with the permission of the State Government for the purposes that may be prescribed: Provided that a person who is nonagriculturist but purchase land either under [clause (dd) or clause (g)] or with the permission granted under clause (h) of this subsection shall, irrespective of such purchase of land, continue to be a nonagriculturist for the purpose of the Act : Provided further that a nonagriculturist [who purchases land under clause (dd) or] in whose case permission to purchase land is granted under clause (h) of this subsection, 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 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 sale, gift or otherwise, the land so purchased by him shall, in the prescribed manner, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. (3) No Registrar or the SubRegistrar appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 shall register any document pertaining to a transfer of land, which is in contravention to subsection (1): Provided that the Registrar or the SubRegistrar may register any transfer (i) where the lease is made in relation to a part or whole of a building; or (ii) where the 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. [(3A) Where (a) the Registrar or the SubRegistrar, appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, before whom any document pertaining to transfer of land is presented for registration, comes to know or has reason to believe that the transfer of land is in contravention of subsection (1); or (b) a Revenue Officer either on an application made to him or on receipt of any information from any source, comes to know or has reason to believe that any land has been transferred or is being transferred in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1); such SubRegistrar, the Registrar or the Revenue Officer, as the case may be, shall make reference to the Collector of the District, in which land or any part thereof is situate, and the Collector, on receipt of such reference, or where the Revenue Officer happens to be the Collector of the District himself, he either on an application made to him or on receipt of any information from any source, comes to know or has reason to believe that any land has been transferred or is being transferred in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1), shall after affording to the persons who are parties to the transfer, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and holding an enquiry, determine whether the transfer of land is or is not in contravention of subsection (1) and he shall, within [six months] from the date of receipt of reference made to him or such longer period as the Divisional Commissioner may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, record his decision thereon and intimate the findings to the Registrar, SubRegistrar or the Revenue Officer concerned. (3B) The person aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Collector, that a particular transfer of land is in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1), may, within 30 days from the date on which the order recording such findings is made by the Collector or such longer period as the Divisional Commissioner may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, file an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, to whom such Collector is subordinate, and the Divisional Commissioner may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and, if necessary, after sending for the records of the case from the Collector [***] reverse, alter or confirm the order made by the Collector [and the order made by the Divisional Commissioner shall be final and conclusive]. [(3C) (a) The Financial Commissioner may, either on a report of a Revenue Officer or on an application or of his own motion, call for the record of any proceedings which are pending before, or have been disposed of by, any Revenue Officer subordinate to him and in which no appeal lies thereto, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit. (b) No order shall be passed under this subsection which adversely affect any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.] (3D) Where the Collector of the District under subsection (3A), in case an appeal is not made within the prescribed period, or the Divisional Commissioner in appeal under subsection (3B), or the Financial Commissioner in [revision] under subsection (3C), decides that the transfer of land is in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1), such transfer shall be void ab initio and the land involved in such transfer together with structures, buildings or other attachments, if any, shall in the prescribed manner, vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances; and] (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 subsection (2) or subsection [(3D)] for such purposes as it may deem fit to do so. [Explanation I. For the purpose of this section, the expression "land" shall include (i) land recorded as "Gairmumkin", "Gairmumkin Makan" or any other Gairmumkin land, by whatever name called in the revenue records; and] (ii) 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 [but shall not include a builtup area in the municipal area;] [Explanation II. For the purpose of this section the expression "municipal area" means the territorial area of a Nagar Panchayat, Cantonment Board, Municipal Council or a Municipal Corporation constituted under any law for the time being in force.]" hence standing visibly infringed (vii) whereupon, under, the impugned annexures, the writ property hence stood ordered to be vested, free from all encumbrances, in, the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. A show cause notice, borne, in Annexure P4, was, served upon the litigants concerned, and, thereafter, under Annexure P6, rendered, on 7.5.2005, and, under Annexure P8, rendered, on 6.9.2008, and, ultimately under Annexure P10, rendered, on 2.6.2009, hence concurrent verdicts for vestment, of, land measuring 3 biswas, borne in Ext. RW1/A, in the State of Himachal Pradesh, free from all encumbrances, rather stood pronounced, (i) apparently for hence in the aforesaid manner, infractions being meted, visavis, the mandate of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, (ii) provisions whereof, hence pointedly cast a statutory interdiction against making, of, any transfer(s), through, any mode, visavis, any nonagriculturist (iii) unless, prior thereto, the, apt statutory permission is accorded, visavis, a nonagriculturist, and, (iv) furthermore, transfer(s), under, any benami agreement being also barred, (v) AND effect of infractions thereof rather visiting, upon, the violator concerned, the illconsequences, of, the apt land rather enjoining, its, vesting in the State of Himachal Pradesh, hence free from all encumbrances. 4. Nowat, the effect of the revenue records, making, a clear display, of, the vendor one Roshan Lal, being displayed therein to be the owner in possession of the apt property, (i) and, also with disclosures borne therein, hence enjoying a presumption of truth, rather reiteratedly enjoin theirs'' standing construed, alongwith the apt statements rendered before the authorities concerned, (ii) whereupon the latter stood coaxed to record, the, impugned annexures, against, the petitioners, and, also against respondent No.3. 5. 5. The apt presumption of truth assignable, visavis, the entries borne in the revenue records, with, a pointed display therein qua one Roshan Lal being reflected therein, to be, the owner in possession of the suit property, is, concerted to be shred of their efficacy, (i) besides the apt presumption of truth imputed thereto, is, concerted to be dislodged, on anvil of one Dhyan Singh, making a testification, borne in his examinationinchief, with, acquiescences therein, (ii) qua, at the time, whereat he visited the relevant property, the respondent No.3 being found to raise construction, on, land measuring 3 biswas, borne on khasra number 744/238. However, no tenacity is assignable, visavis, the afore rendered testification given (iii) his evidently not preparing/conducting any valid demarcation, of, the relevant property, whereas, his holding the demarcation, of, the relevant property, was rather imperative, for his being enabled to render a formidable deposition, qua, upon the writ property, the apt construction being raised, by respondent No.3, (iv) his making acquiescences, in his crossexamination, qua in the latest jamabandi, and, in the gardwari, one Roshan Lal, standing, disclosed to be the owner in possession of the writ property, (v) his not ascertaining, qua, the water and electricity connections, installed inside the relevant building, being obtained by respondent No.3, (iv) in the fag end of his crossexamination, his, testifying qua his not recording the statement, of Dharamvir, on the spot, nor it being appended with the apposite file, (v) his failing to issue notice either to Roshan Lal or to respondent No.3, for theirs'' recording their presence, at the relevant site. Furthermore the Kanoongo concerned has rendered a deposition, in his examinationinchief, with echoings thereon, qua at the time, he visited the site, his discovering qua thereat, the son of respondent No.3, hence monitoring, the construction work, being carried, upon, khasra number 744/238. Furthermore the Kanoongo concerned has rendered a deposition, in his examinationinchief, with echoings thereon, qua at the time, he visited the site, his discovering qua thereat, the son of respondent No.3, hence monitoring, the construction work, being carried, upon, khasra number 744/238. However, even the aforestated deposition is contradicted, by PW1 given the latter in his crossexamination, not, rendering the aforestated bespeakings (vi) rather in his crossexamination, his, acquiescing qua his unawareness qua the identity, of, the son of respondent No.3, (vii) his, in his crossexamination, acquiescing, visavis, no demarcation being carried, at the relevant site, for hence determining qua the construction, if any, as carried, standing carried, upon, khasra number 744/238, (viii) thereupon it is befitting to conclude, qua the construction, if any, carried it being not carried upon khasra number 744/238, (ix) his, in corroboration, visavis, PW1 making a deposition qua the Naib Tehsildar, not, at the relevant site, rather recording the statement, of, one Dharamvir, (x) the effect of the aforestated interse corroboration, occurring, in the testifications of PW1, and, of PW3, are, qua no firm inference being drawable qua the construction, if any, as carried, rather being carried, upon land measuring 3 biswas, hence borne in khasra number 744/238, (xi) with the aggrieved being not associated in the relevant inquiry, hence, the report, if any, prepared by PW1, PW2, and, by PW3, in sequel to theirs purportedly, visiting the relevant site, being not amenable for any reliance being placed thereon, it, infracting the principles, of audialteram partem. 6. The Naib Tehsildar, stepped into the witness box, as PW2, and, he has acquiesced qua the relevant demarcation report, not, standing appended with the file(s) effect whereof, being hence no apt demarcation being carried, at the relevant site, (a) thereupon, it is befitting to conclude qua construction, if any, raised rather being raised, not, upon land measuring 3 biswas borne, in khasra number 744/238. The effect of no tenacity being ascribable, visavis, the testification(s) of PW1, PW2, and, of, PW3, is, qua the presumption of truth, assignable to the entries, borne in the revenue records, with, pointed disclosure(s) therein qua Roshan Lal, being the owner in possession of the suit land, rather prima facie remaining intact, (b) whereupon hence prima facie conclusivity is to be ascribed, visavis, them. Even though Roshan Lal has acquiesced qua the electricity connection, installed inside the relevant property, standing obtained by him, and, when PW2, metes corroboration thereto, (c) nonetheless with Roshan Lal, at the fag end, of his testification, making acquiescences qua his not expending money, for construction being raised, upon, the apt land, (d) thereupon on anvil thereof, the, presumption of truth assignable, to the entries, borne in the relevant records, wherein one Roshan Lal stands displayed to be the owner, in possession of the writ property, does stand firmly rebutted, (e) besides therefrom, respondent No.3 can be concluded, to, without a valid permission being granted, prior to, his proceeding to assume possession, of, the property, and, (f) despite the relevant sale agreement as executed interse him, and, Roshan Lal, agreement of contract of sale whereof, is, borne in RW1/A, rather carrying recitals qua "only until", and, upon the apt statutory permission standing meted, visavis, respondent No.3, thereupto, the, possession of the apt land being retained by Roshan Lal, and, (g) obviously, thereupon the vacant land as borne therein also was thereupto hence unamenable, for, any construction being raised thereon. In sequel, respondent No.3, cannot obviously, even if he has taken possession of land, measuring 3 biswas borne on khasra number 744/238, especially, when prior thereto, no valid apt statutory permission, stands granted qua him, rather draw any leverage, from, Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter "53A. In sequel, respondent No.3, cannot obviously, even if he has taken possession of land, measuring 3 biswas borne on khasra number 744/238, especially, when prior thereto, no valid apt statutory permission, stands granted qua him, rather draw any leverage, from, Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter "53A. Part performance.-Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that 2[***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof." nor he can contend, qua hence his becoming owner, by way of part performance, (i) conspicuously, when it is settled law qua the mandate engrafted in Section 53A, of, the Transfer of Property Act being unamenable, for espousal, imperatively, when hence it would beget, the, untenable scuttling, of, the aforesaid imperative statutory mechanism. However, even if there is permissive construction, if any, raised by respondent No.3, visavis, the land in respect whereof Ext. However, even if there is permissive construction, if any, raised by respondent No.3, visavis, the land in respect whereof Ext. RW1/A stood executed interse him, and, deceased Roshan Lal, and, (ii) when Roshan Lal acquiesces qua respondent No.3, expending money, for raising construction, upon, the apt property borne in the apt khasra number, thereupon at this stage it would not be appropriate, to quash the impugned annexures, for the reasons (a) with the contract of sale standing executed, interse, deceased Roshan Lal, and, respondent No.3, being, visavis, the apt vacant land, (b) thereupon it being unamenable for any construction being raised thereon, (c) unless prior thereto, the, statutory permission stood granted, whereas, with the apt permission rather remaining unmeted, visavis, respondent No.3, thereupon it would be insugacious to quash the impugned annexures, (d) moreso when thereupon it would sequel the illresult, of, validating the assumption, of, apt invalid possession, by respondent No.3, despite, his prior thereto not obtaining, the preemptory statutory permission, (e) besides, it hence untenably presenting, the statutory authorities concerned, with a fiat accompli, for theirs hence, proceeding, to untenably accord, the apt permission, visavis, respondent No.3, despite, respondent No.3, holding an invalid possession, under, a benami transaction, (f) nor it would be appropriate, to pronounce a mandate, upon, the authorities concerned, for, theirs'' processing respondent No.3s'' application, for statutory permission being granted, visavis, him. 7. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.