D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.) Delay condoned
(2.) Leave granted.
(3.) The State of Himachal Pradesh has called into question certain directions that were issued by a Division Bench of the High Court on 23 September 2016. The High Court called upon the State Government to amend the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 within a period of ninety days. These directions were issued by the Division Bench while allowing a writ petition which challenged an order dated 23 April 2014 of the revenue authorities. The judgment of the High Court by which it set aside the order dated 23 April 2014, and directed the state to attest the mutation by treating the respondent as an agriculturist is not called into question to that extent. The lis between the respondent and the state has come to a conclusion with the following direction of the High Court :- "Accordingly, impugned annexure P-9 dated 23.4.2014 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to attest the mutation within a period of eight weeks from today by treating the petitioner to be an agriculturist". The state is, however, aggrieved by the mandamus which was issued by the Division Bench for amending the legislation, in the following terms :- "However, before parting with the judgment, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the State Government to make suitable amendments to Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 read with HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 in order to facilitate to purchase any land (agricultural and non-agricultural) in the State of Himachal Pradesh by the non-agriculturist Himachalis residing in the State for decades together prior to the date of commencement of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, within a period of ninety days from today". The appeal is confined to a challenge to the above direction to amend the legislation. In the present proceedings, the appellants have not questioned the correctness of the order passed in favour of the respondent setting aside the order passed by the revenue authorities on 23 April 2014 or the direction to attest the mutation within eight weeks. Since the purpose of the respondent in filing the writ petition was served (and the relief granted to him has not been questioned) it has not been necessary to issue notice to the respondent having regard to the nature of the challenge preferred in these proceedings.;