IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.258 of 2001. Date of decision: 12.5.2008. Ram Lal ….Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.Naresh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for R-1. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) One Sh.Shankar Dass filed a suit against the Gram Sabha Bangarh and Fatehwal. This suit was numbered as Civil Suit No.480 of 69. The suit was decided on 22.6.1972. A decree was passed in the suit restraining the Gram Panchayat Bangarh and Fatehwal from interfering in the exercise of grazing rights of the cattle, cutting of grass and cutting dry wood of decree holders in the land measuring 1505 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Fatehwal. After the passing of this decree the State enacted the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 3(1) of the said Act reads as follows: “3.Vesting of rights in the State Government.-(1)Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order of any court or other authority all 2 rights, title and interests including the contingent interest, if any, of the landowner in the lands in any estate- (a)vested in a Panchayat under section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) as in force in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under section 5 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) except lands used or reserved for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds within abadi deh or garah deh; (b)described in the revenue records as shamilat taraf, patties, pannas and thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under section 5 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) and (c)described in revenue records as shamilat, shamilat deh, shamilat taraf, shamilat chak and patti in the areas comprised in Himachal Pradesh, immediately before first November, 1966; shall stand extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances.” An execution petition was filed by the legal heirs of the original Decree Holder on 5.10.1991 claiming that the State had stepped into the shoes of the Gram Panchayat is bound by the aforesaid decree and therefore the State cannot auction grass and cannot restrain petitioners from enjoying the fruits of the decree passed in their favour. This execution petition was contested and the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the State was not a party in the said proceedings hence it is not bound by the decree passed in the said Suit. Aggrieved against the said order the decree holder filed the present Revision Petition. Without going into the question as to whether the learned trial Court was right or wrong in holding that the State was not bound by the decree, I feel that there is no merit in the petition in view of Section 3 of the Act which has been quoted above. Section 3(1) of the Act vests all rights notwithstanding any decree or order of any Court in the State Government. Prima facie this would include the 3 right of grazing etc. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the action of the State was not proper, challenge to the action would not lie in execution proceedings. The State had not stepped into the shoes of the original owners as transferee but under the provisions of a statutory enactment whereby all rights and interests in the land vested in it free from all encumbrances. In case the decree holders felt that their rights could not be taken over by the State in such a manner their remedy lay in either filing a writ petition or by filing a fresh suit. The remedy did not lie in executing the decree. The decree has been passed prior to the enactment of the Act in question. It is the Act which gives a fresh cause of action and this enactment was not the subject matter of the earlier litigation. Therefore the decree could not have been executed to curtail the rights of the State under this enactment. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. No order as to costs. May 12, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge