LACHHMAN RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Solan (HP) in the proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

(3.) Sans unnecessary details, the scope of the writ petition lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner purchased a piece of agricultural land, claiming himself to be an agriculturist belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh. But upon a complaint received, the District Collector initiated proceedings and came to the conclusion by the order impugned in the writ petition that the sale consideration for the purchase of the land was paid by a Limited Company of which petitioner was the Director. In other words the Collector came to the conclusion that it was a benami transaction and hence the land would vest in the State.