Active Progress Of Housing Project Within Permitted Time Is Sufficient Compliance Under Tenancy & Land Reform Act: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that when permission is granted under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the law only requires the land to be put to use for the intended purpose within the prescribed time, and not for the entire project to be completed.The Court remarked that the “Legislature deliberately used the phrase “put to use” instead of “complete the project” signifying that active progress within the permitted time is sufficient compliance”.Rejecting the State's contention, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “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. What is required in law is that steps have to be taken to put the land to use for the purpose for which the permission has been granted.”The petitioner, M/s Springdale Resorts and Villas Pvt. Ltd. wanted to develop an Integrated Housing Project at District, Solan for which the Town and Country Planning Department issued them the Certificate. The petitioner thereafter sought permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.In 2021, the company got permission from the Town and Country Planning which was valid for three years. However, in February 2024, the Town and Country Planner refused to process its revised drawings, claiming that the Section 118 permission had expired 10 days later. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court. It was contended by the petitioner that it had already started construction work on the land and the delay in completion of the work was caused by COVID-19 pandemic and delayed departmental approvals.It further contended that under Section of the Himachal Pradesh Land Tenancy Act, when permission is granted, it does not mean the entire project must be completed within that period.In response, the State contended that the petitioner was only given permission for two years from registration of the sale deed, which was further extendable to 1 year, and the act does not provide extension beyond three years from the date of registration of Sale Deed.The Court noted that it was contradictory after giving the permission under section 118 for three years, 10 days later, the authority submitted that the permission had expired. The Court remarked that the Town and Country Planning Department exceeded its jurisdiction as its limited scope was either to accept or reject the revised proposal, not to make observations regarding the validity of the permission. The Court further remarked that Section 118's purpose is to ensure that non-agriculturists use purchased land for the intended purpose. The provision does not impose a specific deadline for completion of the project. Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner had put the land to use and the authorities had erred in declaring that the permission expired. Case Name: M/s Springdale Resorts and Villas Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Himachal and othersCase No.: CWP No. 3363 of 2025Date of Decision: 26.09.2025For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vivek Negi, AdvocateFor the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Active Progress Of Housing Project Within Permitted Time Is Sufficient Compliance Under Tenancy & Land Reform Act: HP High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags