Shimla: A quiet complaint lodged by an advocate at the Chhota Shimla police station has exposed a rift in Himachal Pradesh’s bureaucracy, revealing apparent issues with enforcement of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972, and raising questions about administrative control.
Advocate Vinay Sharma’s complaint, filed on 24 March, alleges ‘benami’ land deals and violations of Section 118—which prohibits non-agriculturists from purchasing agricultural land without prior government approval—in the Chester Hills project in Himachal’s Solan. It accuses Acting Chief Secretary Sanjay Gupta of shielding promoters and preventing the Solan deputy commissioner from lodging an FIR.
The complaint relies on a 24-page inquiry report by the Solan sub-divisional magistrate (SDM), initiated after a complaint by local resident Rajiv Shandil and the association of allottees in August 2025.
At the centre of the row is Chester Hills, a gated township developed by M/s NG Estate. Registered with the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) in 2019, the project got clearances during the tenure of then Himachal RERA chair Shrikant Baldi, a former chief secretary himself.
After the probe, the SDM’s report flagged what it described as a “structured arrangement” to bypass Section 118 in Chester Hills. The report identified local ‘agriculturist’ Hansraj Thakur, among others, as an alleged proxy in the prima facie ‘benami’ transactions, and pointed to potential violations of both the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (amended in 2016), and RERA norms.
Following representations by the ‘agriculturists’ in December 2025, Gupta allegedly dismissed the SDM findings and warned about harm to the agriculturists’ interests. Proceedings, subsequently, came to a halt.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has since then stayed portions of the administration’s orders in this matter, and the state government has ordered a fresh probe. The promoters have not publicly responded.
The situation has raised the stakes for hundreds of allottees of Chester Hills. They face delayed possession, missing basic amenities, and fear their homes will be declared illegal.
Section 118: What it protects
Enacted under the state’s first chief minister, Y.S. Parmar, Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, bars the transfer of agricultural land by sale, gift, exchange, lease, mortgage, or any other means to anyone who is not a bona fide agriculturist of the state without state government approval. The provision is intended to protect small and marginal farmers from displacement by wealthier outsiders or non-farming locals in a hill state with scarce cultivable land and delicate ecology.
Violations can end in the state reclaiming the land.
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently upheld the objective of the provision to prevent large-scale transfer of agricultural land to commercial interests. For instance, in Ajay Dabra vs Pyare Ram (2023), the top court declined to permit the transfer of cultivable land for a private ski project.
Section 118 remains politically sensitive in Himachal Pradesh, where land ownership remains closely tied to identity and inheritance. Past attempts to dilute the provision—such as in 2010, 2014, and 2019 and during the more recent talks on easing business norms—have triggered protests over fears of demographic change, loss of agrarian livelihoods, and ecological damage.
Official revenue records indicate hundreds of complaints of alleged violations—roughly 300—underscoring residents’ recurring concerns over misuse through ‘benami’ arrangements or administrative lapses.
Also Read: Amid revenue crisis, Himachal cuts budget by Rs 3,586 cr, defers salaries of CM, MLAs, top officials
The bureaucratic tussle
HP RERA ex-chair Shrikant Baldi blamed the controversy on two orders issued by Sanjay Gupta in December 2025, which, he alleged, were passed without jurisdiction.
The SDM found alleged violations of Section 118, and the deputy commissioner was expected to act. However, according to the allegations against Gupta, the Chief Secretary intervened through a 6 December 2025 order, effectively validating the land purchases in Chester Hills.
Speaking to ThePrint, Baldi said that the state government should take action against Sanjay Gupta for issuing two blatant illegal orders in favour of Chester Hills. He also suggested that Gupta had brought counter-allegations against HP RERA to deflect attention.
“It is painful to note that Sh Sanjay Gupta, who throughout his service career has remained an officer of doubtful integrity, is making false allegations against two chairpersons of HP RERA, to divert attention from two illegal orders passed by him, in favour of Chester Hill projects.”
Tensions in the bureaucracy escalated after Gupta, who became Acting Chief Secretary in October 2025 and is due to retire in May, wrote to HP RERA chairperson R.D. Dhiman, formerly chief secretary, on 9 April, seeking a report on “wilful inaction” by the regulator.
Gupta also questioned whether Baldi had acted “in conspiracy with non-agriculturists” and whether due diligence under the HP RERA Act had been properly conducted.
He even alleged that a “rival lobby” of retired civil servants, such as former chief secretaries R.D. Dhiman and Prabodh Saxena—now HP State Electricity Board head—were behind all the charges against him. Saxena has not been directly linked to the Chester Hills approvals but has been pulled into the broader dispute.
Meanwhile, Gupta himself faced scrutiny over his purchase of nearly three acres of land in Kharar, Punjab, in July 2025, at a rough cost of Rs 1.38 crore. He, however, denied all wrongdoing before the media, saying, “There is no violation. The land was bought at 25–30 percent above the collector rate using legitimate financial sources, including institutional loans.”
Gupta also claimed that the group of bureaucrats was retaliating against him for his complaints about some of them during his earlier posting with the electricity board.
ThePrint reached Gupta for comment, and he said he had already said what he had to say.
Administrative flip-flop
The revenue department’s shifting stance has added to the controversy.
On 6 December 2025, Additional Secretary (Revenue) Sunil Verma rejected the SDM’s findings, stating that the implicated landowners were bona fide “agriculturists” and directing that no action be taken.
However, in March this year, Additional Secretary Anil Chauhan withdrew this position after a “re-examination at the government level” and directed the Solan Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings under Section 118.8.
The new directive asked the DC to “institute a case of violation under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972” and pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties concerned.
This U-turn has reinforced perceptions of administrative inconsistency.
On its end, HP RERA has defended its actions, stating that the Chester Hills project was registered only after verification of all statutory documents, including Section 118 clearances, wherever required.
R.D. Dhiman said that he would present his position before the competent authority, emphasising that HP RERA decisions are collective and subject to judicial review.
Political repercussions
The bureaucratic feud has spilt into the political area.
Asked about the case in late March, Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu said he had “no prior knowledge of the issue”. On 2 April, he finally told reporters that the government would “examine the matter in detail before taking a view” and “if something wrong has happened, definite action will be taken”.
Former CM and now Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur criticised the state government for shielding officials. “The chief minister has been deliberately avoiding speaking on this issue…should speak & clarify the actual situation,” he told ThePrint, alleging that the CM was “completely compromised and unable to take any punitive action”.
Sanjay Chauhan, CPI(M) secretary, Himachal Pradesh, demanded Gupta’s immediate removal for the “misuse” of his position and an FIR. “There is sheer corruption in passing such arbitrary orders to benefit violators,” he told ThePrint.
A senior Congress leader and former minister, speaking anonymously, said, “The chief secretary and former chief secretaries are fighting as if there is no government. The CM cannot wash his hands off by calling this an internal matter—it is affecting governance and seriously damaging the government’s image.”
Political analyst M.P.S. Rana told ThePrint, “People are touchy about Section 118 and its violations. The government should intervene in a timely manner, set an example, and put an end to the bickering, thereby exhibiting administrative control.”
Ex-chief secretary Vineet Chaudhary is the latest to step into the controversy. On his social media, speaking on “corruption allegations” in two states, he noted that while Haryana suspended two senior IAS officers, the Himachali CM “flippantly” described the charges as “internal bickering amongst three bureaucrats”.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)