As per case facts, the District Collector ordered vestment of the Respondent's land with the State due to failure to construct a resort within two years, citing Section 118 of ... the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The Respondent successfully appealed to the Divisional Commissioner and then the Financial Commissioner, who both ruled that the default was not conscious negligence, attributing it to economic recession and other challenges, and noting the Respondent's efforts. The Petitioner (State) then filed a Writ Petition. The question arose whether the Respondent's actions constituted a "conscious default" warranting land vestment under a strict interpretation of the two-year use period. Finally, the court dismissed the Writ Petition due to unexplained delay and laches, and on merits, concurring that the Respondent's default was not conscious and that meaningful steps were taken, thus not requiring land vestment.