IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 15 of 2007 Date of decision : 19.5.2008 Sansar Chand and others. Appellants Versus N.K.Misra and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, No. 2 to 4. Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, vice No.5 and 6. Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The appellants filed a suit for declaration before the learned trial Court. In the said suit the appellants prayed that the respondents-State be restrained from granting permits to private respondents Baldev and Hardev to graze their cattle in jungle Dughi Marhi, which according to the plaintiffs is part of Deothal Dhar. The plaintiffs also prayed for injunction that the respondents be restrained from interfering in Khasra No. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 15, measuring 4965.1 bighas, known as Dhar Deothal, Pargna Loh-Tikri, Tehsil Churah, Dstrict Chamba. According to the plaintiffs, they are in possession of the land pursuant to the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, H.P. on 17.3.1960. There is no question of the petitioner being in possession of the suit land since the suit land is a Forest land owned by the State and even as per the mutation Ext.PE what was granted to the predecessor of the petitioners by the Financial Commissioner was a right to take grass from the land in question. Possession of the land was not given to the plaintiffs, who cannot be deemed to be in possession of the suit land under any circumstances. The main grievance of the plaintiffs was that in respect of jungle Dughi Marhi the State had granted permits to private respondents to graze their cattle. Hence the present suit. The learned trial Court vide its judgement dated 7.12.2004 came to the conclusion that no specific evidence was led by the plaintiffs to show that jungle Dughi Marhi had got some specific Khasra Number or that it formed part of Dhar Deothal. He further held that the plaintiffs had failed to identify the land and therefore, no decree could be passed without the land being identified in a proper manner. Appeal was filed against the said judgement and the same has been rejected. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Ramesh Sharma learned vice counsel for respondents 5 and 6. I have also gone through the entire record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that previously Baldev, respondent No.5 herein, filed a suit, in respect of land measuring 500 bighas being part of Khasra No. 13, total area of which was 12652 bighas. The plaintiffs had earlier also filed suit in respect of Khasra No. 15, which measures 4965-1 bighas. It is apparent that the land in Khasra No. 13 is different from the land of Khasra No. 15, which is the subject matter of present dispute. The suit of Baldev was decreed by the trial Court. In appeal the learned District Judge, Chamba, set aside the judgement and decree of the learned trial Court holding that Baldev had failed to show that he had any right to graze his cattle on the said land in view of the fact that he had not proved any permit issued after 1988. The question as to whether jungle Dughi Marhi was part of Khasra No. 13 and 15 did not arise in the said case. Only the right of Baldev to graze cattle in 500 bighas out of Khasra No. 13 was decided in the said case. The present petitioners also filed Civil Suit No. 86 of 1990 in respect of Khasra No. 15, which is the subject matter of the present suit. Though the suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, the learned trial Court in respect of jungle Dughi Marhi held as follows:- “In fact, there is no cogent, convincing, strong and reliable evidence on the file to show that the jungle ‘Dugi marhi’ is a part of the suit land known as ‘Khundi-Morali’ situated in Dhar-Deyothal.” Thus, it is apparent that the learned trial Court in the earlier suit gave a finding that there is no evidence to show that jungle Dughi Marhi is part of the suit land known as Khundi Morali situated at Dhar Deyothal. This suit related to Khasra No. 15 as is apparent from the judgement itself. The present suit also relates to Khasra No. 15. The plaintiffs never challenged the findings of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, in Civil Suit No. 86 of 1990. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that jungle Dughi Marhi is a part of Dhar Deyothal Khundi Morali. In the present case no cogent evidence has been led in this behalf. Learned Courts below on a pure finding of fact have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to identify the land. This is a finding of fact and no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, without any merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. May 19, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™