State Of Hp vs. M/S Hindustan Tin Works Limited

Held

The Court held that the respondent had taken cogent and meaningful steps towards putting the land to use for the purpose for which permission was granted. Relying on precedents like Ravinder Chauhan and M/s Springdale Resorts and Villas Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the Court emphasized that the words "shall put the land to such use" should not be interpreted myopically. The intent of Section 118(2) is to ensure steps are taken, not necessarily complete construction within the period. The Court noted that obtaining various permissions and approvals from different departments is a prerequisite for commencing actual construction. The mechanical order of the District Collector, ordering vesting of the land, was rightly set aside by the higher authorities. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The respondent, M/s Hindustan Tin Works Limited, was granted permission to purchase land for an industrial unit in 2007, with a two-year period to set it up. Extensions were granted, but the industry was not established. Proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, were initiated in 2011. The respondent claimed to have commenced development work. The Collector ordered the land to vest in the State government in 2016. The Divisional Commissioner set aside this order in 2019. A revision petition by the State led to a remand order by the Financial Commissioner in 2021, directing the Collector to re-decide the matter. The State filed the present petition aggrieved by the Divisional Commissioner's and Financial Commissioner's orders, which held the vesting of land illegal and remanded the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent failed to put the land to the permitted use within the stipulated period under Section 118(2) of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, leading to its automatic vestment in the State? Petitioner's arguments: The State argued that the respondent did not use the land for the purpose for which it was granted within the stipulated period, and the second proviso to Section 118(2)(h) mandates vesting of the land in the State government in such a scenario. They sought to quash the impugned orders. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that they had taken steps to put the land to use, citing various approvals and no-objection certificates obtained for setting up the industrial unit, including electricity and water connection NOCs, single window clearance, and consent to establish from the Pollution Control Board. They argued that the interpretation of the statutory period should not be myopic and that they had demonstrated cogent steps towards utilizing the land.