Section 118 has HIMUDA plot owners in trouble
Lalit Mohan
Tribune News Service
Dharamsala, August 11
People who have purchased plots in HIMUDA colonies are facing trouble due to varied interpretation of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Tenancy Act by revenue officials.
In Dharamsala, the officials concerned are not entering the mutation of plots bought in HIMUDA colonies owing to which the owners are being denied loan by various banks.
Sources said mutations in the name of plot owners were being denied because as per revenue records, the land belonged to HIMUDA and not individual owners.
They said HIMUDA officials had written to Kangra Deputy Commissioner Rakesh Prajapati and sought his intervention in this regard.
Confirming this, Prajapati said he had received a complaint in this regard, which was being examined.
HIMUDA officials said the government, in a notification issued in 2012, had clarified that officials of the urban development authority would get the revenue numbers of individual plots and flats registered in record so that subsequently the names of owners were entered once they bought them from HIMUDA.
They said revenue officials were now not entering the records of plots in revenue papers due to which the consumers were facing problems.
The other problem being faced is that hat the owners are not being allowed to resell these plots. According to information, when HIMUDA develops a colony, it gets exemption under Section 118 from the government. It means that even outsiders and non-agriculturists can purchases plots and flats in HIMUDA colonies.
However, some revenue officials are not allowing those who have purchased plots from HIMUDA to further resell them.
On the other hand, revenue officials said HIMUDA was given only one-time exemption from Section 118. If the owners wanted to resell plots, they should again seek permission.
According to information, Section 118 is applicable to agricultural land only. Once HIMUDA develops a township over a piece of land, it seizes to be agricultural one. Its use gets changed to urban land and considering it under the provisions of Section 118 is not justifiable.
