Recently, in a significant judgment concerning land utilization and development permissions under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the Himachal Pradesh High Court examined the scope and interpretation of permissions granted for integrated housing projects. The central issue before the Court was whether the petitioner had sufficiently “put the land to use” within the stipulated period despite delays caused by external factors, and whether subsequent revisions could be considered without obtaining fresh permission. Read on to explore how the Court clarified the interplay between statutory mandates, administrative discretion, and practical execution in large-scale development projects.
Brief Facts:
The Case arose when a company engaged in developing an integrated housing project in Himachal Pradesh sought permission to purchase land under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Following the grant of approval by the Government and subsequent registration of sale deeds, the company faced delays in commencing development due to pending departmental clearances and disruptions caused by the pandemic. Although the utilization period for the land was extended, the company’s application for further extension was forwarded to the State authorities, citing the exclusion of the pandemic period as per Supreme Court directions. After obtaining the requisite permissions and beginning development activities, the company sought a revision of its project drawings. However, the Town and Country Planning Department rejected the request on the grounds that fresh permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was required. Despite recommendations from the district authorities in support of the company’s case, the State Government refused the extension, prompting the company to approach the High Court, challenging the rejection and seeking reconsideration of its request.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that it had duly utilized the land for the purpose for which it was permitted to purchase it, as certified by the Village Revenue Officer. The delay in completing the project was caused by factors beyond its control, including pending litigation, delay in issuance of NOCs from multiple authorities, demonetization, and the COVID-19 pandemic. It was further argued that the concerned authorities were kept informed of the project’s progress, and despite compliance with conditions, the Government wrongly rejected its request for extension. The petitioner maintained that it sought the extension only under a mistaken belief and that the rejection order was arbitrary and contrary to law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondents submitted that the petitioner had been granted permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, to utilize the land within two years from the date of registration of Sale Deeds, extendable by one year only. After granting a final extension up to Septempber 2021, the Government categorically directed that no further extension could be granted under the Act or Rules. Since the petitioner failed to utilize the land within the stipulated time, the Government was justified in rejecting its subsequent requests. The respondents maintained that there was no provision in the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, to extend the utilization period beyond three years from the date of registration, and hence, the petitioner’s claim was untenable.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that permission to purchase the land under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was granted to the petitioner on September 2014, valid for one year, with a stipulation under the proviso to Section 118 (2) (h) that the land must be utilized for the approved purpose within two years from the registration of the Sale Deed, extendable by one year. The Court highlighted that the petitioner was required to ensure completion of formalities within this period, failing which consequences would ensue. It observed that the certificate for registration as a promoter under Rule 41 (2) of the Rules under the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 was issued on February 2015, valid for three years and renewable. The extension of time granted for registration of the sale deeds was undisputed, and approval under Section 31(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, was subsequently issued for the proposed plotted housing colony, subject to certain conditions.
The Court took note of the Village Revenue Officer’s report confirming that the land had been put to use through road construction using machinery, with details of the work communicated to local authorities. It also referred to the Deputy Commissioner’s recommendation for extension and the Project Registration Certificate issued by the real estate regulatory authority, valid for ten years. On the petitioner’s request for revision of approval, the Court observed that the Town and Country Planner had rejected it on the ground that the land was not put to use and that fresh permission under Section 118 was required. Critiquing this view, the Court stated that “while issuing this communication, the Authority erred in not appreciating that on 18.09.2021 itself, vide Annexure P-9, it had granted the petitioner permission for proposed plotted housing colony and the permission which was accorded, was for development under Section 31 (b) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977.” It further clarified that the permission pertained to site development rather than construction and that such development had indeed been carried out, as evidenced by the Village Revenue Officer’s undisputed certificate.
The Court pointed out inconsistencies in the Authority's actions, noting that if permission expired in September 2021, it was unclear how development permission was granted 10 days before with a three-year validity, or how RERA issued certification post-expiry. It held that the Town and Country Planner had no authority to comment on the validity of Section 118 permission, as its role was limited to approving or rejecting the revision proposal submitted within the validity period. The Court interpreted Section 118 (2) (h), quoting the provision in extenso, and observed that “the second provision to this Clause provides that a non-agriculturist in whose case permission to purchase the land is granted under (h) of this sub-section, shall put the land to such use for which permission has been granted within a period of two years or a further period not exceeding one year", but this should not be interpreted myopically to mean complete project execution. Instead, "the words “shall put the land to such use for which the permission has been granted” are not to be interpreted as myopically as the respondents want the Court to read them." The intent is to ensure steps are taken to utilize the land for the approved purpose, and if cogent steps are demonstrated, the condition is satisfied, not cosmetic ones.
Referring to Ravinder Chauhan and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and State of Himachal Pradesh v. M/s Barog Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that vesting of land in the State is not automatic but requires a finding of conscious default after due process, not mere impossibility or external delays. It observed that large projects inherently need multiple approvals even post-sale, and strict interpretation would unfairly penalize genuine efforts. Since the petitioner had obtained valid permissions, commenced development, registered with RERA, and sought revision before expiry, the Court held that the permission could not be deemed to have lapsed.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned communications, held that the petitioner had utilized the land for the purpose permitted under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s request for revision of drawings under the applicable rules and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, disposing of the petition and all pending applications.
Case Title: M/s Springdale Resorts and Villas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others
Case No: CWP No.3363 of 2025
Coram: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Advocate for Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Suneet Goel, Adv. Vivek Negi
Advocate for Respondent: AAG Rajpal Thakur
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
