NEW DELHI: Solely agriculturists engaged in cultivation should purchase land in Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court docket has stated, including that others will want a previous permission of the state authorities to buy land within the Himalayan state.
Citing the related provisions within the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972, a bench of justices PS Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia highlighted the target behind the legislative proscription. “The aim is to save lots of the small agricultural holding of poor individuals and in addition to test the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural functions,” it underscored.
An individual who shouldn’t be an agriculturist can solely buy land in Himachal Pradesh with the permission of the state authorities, stated the bench, referring to Part 118 of the Act. “The federal government is anticipated to look at from a case-to-case foundation whether or not such permission could be given or not,” it added.
The courtroom’s emphasis on the land legal guidelines of the northern state got here because it heard a case regarding switch of an agricultural land for a non-agricultural function. The petitioner earlier than the bench was an agriculturist from the state who was assigned the fitting because the purchaser of two plots of land by a non-public firm. The corporate had bought the land for a non-agricultural function however after it didn’t get an approval of the state authorities, it assigned the fitting to the petitioner for executing the sale deed with the vendor of the land.
The petitioner filed a swimsuit earlier than a civil courtroom within the state for the execution of the sale deed however the plea was dismissed. The excessive courtroom additionally rejected the attraction on the bottom of delay in submitting the attraction.
In its judgment, the apex courtroom not solely affirmed the excessive courtroom order but additionally highlighted the pertinent provisions and the aim of the 1972 Act.
“Below Part 118 of the 1972 Act, solely an agriculturist, which is outlined below Part 2(2) of the 1972 Act, should purchase land in Himachal Pradesh, which might imply a landowner who personally cultivates his land in Himachal Pradesh. If a non-agriculturist has to buy a land, it could solely be achieved with the prior permission of the state authorities,” recorded the judgment.
“Within the current case, it thought it finest, to not grant such a permission. Nonetheless, the aim of the switch stays the identical, which is a non-agricultural exercise. By merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who can be utilizing the land for a function apart from agriculture, would defeat the aim of this Act,” stated the bench, placing its stamp of approval on the subordinate courtroom orders refusing the switch of land.
