Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

Since both the Regular Second Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 18.4.2002 rendered by the District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal Nos. 134/1993 and 151/1993, the same were taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the legal heirs of plaintiff-respondent Jalha Ram (herein after referred to as ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) instituted a Civil Suit No. 68/1979 against the appellants-defendants and respondent No.4 Tikka Maheshwar Chand for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in the representative capacity with the averments that the land entered in Khata No.1 min, Khatauni Nos. 7 and 8, Khasra Nos. 751/591 min, 617, 751/591 min measuring 14 kanals and Khata No.91, Khatauni No.111, Khasra Nos. 752/591 and 754/591 measuring 12 Kanals total area of both the khatas measuring 26 kanals, situated in Tikka Jhalan, Mauza Hathol, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, as per jambandi for the year 1970-71 is recorded in the ownership of the defendants and Bartandari rights of the plaintiff and other Tikadarans of the proprietary body of the Tika Jhalan as per letter No. 1353 dated 11.3.1897 in the remarks column. The suit land was owned by Maheshwar Chand, originally arrayed as defendant No.1 and his ancestors since long and was subject to the Bartandari rights of the plaintiff and other Tikadarans. Defendant No.1 has sold his ownership rights to appellants-defendants and Jagdish Chand, predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 2 to 8 Paras Ram. The suit land was Banjar Kadim in the shape of ‘Charand’ in which plaintiff and other Tikadarans have Bartandari rights of grazing, sandh bihag, extracting land and stones, cutting bushes etc. and burying children and their animals and other rights subservient to it. Defendants No.2 to 9, appellant Jagdish Chand and legal heirs of Paras Ram were unnecessarily interfering in the Bartandari rights of the plaintiff and other Tikadarans.

3. Defendant No.2, namely, Jagdish Chand and legal heirs of Paras Ram filed their separate written statements. According to them, they have enclosed the suit property for the last 20 years and have also constructed houses. The plaintiff and other Tikadarans were neither exercising nor allowed to exercise alleged Bartandari rights over the suit land. The alleged Bartandari rights were never exercised on the spot over the suit land for over 12 years. The suit land was also under cultivation for more than 12 years.

4. The State of Himachal Pradesh was also ordered to be added as defendant No.10 vide judgment dated 31.5.1985. State Government has also filed written statement. According to the averments contained in the written statement, now under the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, the land in question was vested in the State of H.P. free from all encumbrances and the rights of Tikkadarans including plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 9 were put to an end.

5. Separate replications were filed. Issues were framed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (II), Hamirpur on 23.12.1980. The suit was decreed on 31.1.1984. Defendant Jagdish Chand and legal heirs of Paras Ram filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hamirpur. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.1.1984 was set aside by the learned District Judge on 31.5.1985 and the case was remanded back and the plaintiff was permitted to file amended plaint after adding Collector, Hamirpur as defendant No.10. Learned Sub Judge 1st Class (II), Hamirpur framed additional issues on 21.2.1986, including “Whether the land in suit has been legally vested in the State of H.P.” Learned Sub Judge 1st Class dismissed the suit on 28.4.1986. Plaintiff Jalha Ram instituted an appeal against the judgment dated 28.4.1986. Learned District Judge allowed the appeal on 7.6.1993 and remanded the matter back to the trial court for deciding the suit afres