RSA 67 of 1996. 11.11.2008 Present: Mr. K.D.Sood, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for the respondent. This appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court praying for a decree of declaration and injunction against the respondent State for the suit land as detailed in the plaint. On consideration of the entire evidence before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and granted a declaratory decree and permanent injunction in favour of the appellants herein and against the State. Aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. While considering the appeal, the learned District Judge held that the entire matter pertaining to the vestment of the suit land in the State is required to be considered afresh by the Collector and till such determination, the possession of the plaintiff was protected. Plaintiffs thereafter filed the present appeal raising two substantial questions of law. On 12.6.2007, this Court by a detailed order had directed the Collector to determine as to whether the vestment of the land in the State was in accordance with law or not and for this purpose, both the parties were granted -2- permission to lead such evidence as they thought fit and proper to establish their respective claims. The Collector decided the matter in case No. 2 of 2007 which findings he has remitted to this Court holding: “ Hence it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts the land has been under the possession of the appellants/ plaintiffs since 1910-14 to till date and which is also under cultivation since then. The land has also been assessed land revenue since 1910-14 to 1973-74 and it is also presumed that the land revenue has not been continued to be paid by the plaintiffs from 1973-74 because it has been wrongly vested to the government in 1973-74. At the same time, the appellants have been wrongly sanctioned as owners vide mutation No. 738, by the order of Sr.Sub Judge, Hamirpur dated 20.11.89. But the appellants also donot claim ownership over the disputed land of 11 Kanals 7 Marlas. Hence they could not be declared as owners of the above land, as which has been wrongly entered in the jamabandi since 1990-91. In view of above my discussion it is well established that the disputed land old Khasra No. 1942 area measuring 11 Kanals 7 Marlas (New Kh. No. 1887 with an increased area -3- due to merging of this land 11 Kanals 7 Marlas with adjoining land had been wrongly vested to the Govt. It is also proved that the land has been under the possession and cultivation of the appellants/plaintiffs since 1910-14 and they had been paying land revenue till 1973-74. It is also accepted by the appellants/plaintiffs and proved that they claim possession over the land to the extent of 11 Kanals 7 Marlas and not ownership, over the disputed land. The file be consigned to GRR after its due completion. As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the decision of the Collector is hereby submitted for kind perusal in this case.” Both the parties have accepted these findings of the Collector. The Collector, after a detailed examination of the evidence on record, having held that the land could not have vested in the State, this appeal does not survive and is disposed of as such. The judgment of the Collector shall form part of the record of these proceedings. In view of the decision of the Collector, the judgment of the learned District Judge is modified to the extent it reverses the judgment of the learned trial -4- Court holding that the vestment in the State was illegal. This appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment passed by the Collector. The other findings of the learned appellate Court are kept intact. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of and interim orders vacated. November 11, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.