IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No.353 of 2007. Date of decision : 29.04.2010. Ramesh Chand ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr.Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For Respondents.1 & 2: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.3: Mr.Pawan Gautam, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner challenges the order Annexure P-7 passed by the Additional District Magistrate-cum- Commissioner(exercising the powers under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Scheme, 1975), Kangra at Dharamshala. Himachal Pradesh According to this order, the petitioner had sold his land measuring 0-07-70 Hectares to one Kishan Chand son of Shri Vidhu Ram on 18.9.1982, in order to bring himself within the eligibility criteria for 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 allotment of Land under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Scheme, 1975. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this finding is against the record as according to the Nakal Istemal the land purported to be sold is by Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Chetu and not by the petitioner who is son of Moti Ram. Certified copy of the mutation has been placed on the record as Annexure P-8. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this is not the correct factual situation and that not only has the petitioner sold land in order to bring himself within the parameters of eligibility for allotment but has also utilized the land for a purpose other than that which is sanctioned by the Scheme. She submits that instead of putting it to use for the purposes of residence, by building his own house, the petitioner has constructed a number of shops and despite an order, injuncting him from raising further construction, passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Kangra the petitioner continued to flout it with impunity. These are grounds pleaded by the State in reply to the supplementary affidavit. I do not find from the record that these grounds have been made the basis for cancellation of the allotment of the land to the petitioner. On the other aspect what is prima facie deduceable from the documents filed by the petitioner is that the sale has 3 been effected by Ramesh Kumar son of Chetu. In these circumstances, the order Annexure P-7 is quashed and set aside. This will not preclude the State from looking into the legality of the grant made to the petitioner on his ground of eligibility as also on any other ground which in law disentitles him from retaining this land. Needless to say that for this purpose the petitioner shall be given appropriate notice in order to meet the case set out against him. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. April 29, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.