ORDER

1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT MADE IN THE SECOND APPEAL IS UNDER CHALLENGE. THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE FORMULATED BY THE HIGH COURT WHILE ADMITTING THE SECOND APPEAL:

"1. WHETHER THE SUIT LAND HAS VESTED IN THE STATE OF H.P. UNDER THE H.P. CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES.

2. WHETHER THE CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY AND ENTERTAIN THE E CIVIL SUIT IN VIEW OF BAR CREATED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE H.P. CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 (ACT 19 OF 1973).

3. WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION.

4. WHETHER THE PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF GOVERNMENT LAND CANNOT BE GRANTED IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN SECTION 104 OF F THE H.P. TENANCY AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1972."

3. THE HIGH COURT ANSWERED THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AGAINST THE APPELLANT STATE HOLDING THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT DID NOT VEST IN THE STATE. THE OTHER SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS WERE NOT ANSWERED AS THE RESULT OF THE CASE DEPENDED UPON THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT ALSO G HAD