Continuous possession alone does not establish ownership; the rights in land vested in State, and compensation is not a pre-condition for possession transfer.

1. These appeals are directed against judgments dated 21.4.1997 and 20.5.1998 of the learned Single Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby they allowed the second appeals preferred by the plaintiffs - respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') and restrained the defendants - appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') from interfering with their right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit properties without following the procedure established by law. In his judgment dated 21.4.1997 rendered in Second Appeal No. 98/1992, which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No.4109 of 2002, the learned Single Judge also made payment of compensation as a condition for taking possession of the land.

2. We shall first notice the factual matrix of Civil Appeal Nos. 3751 - 3752 of 2002.
A. The respondents filed Suit No. 44/1 of 1987 for grant of a declaration that they are the owners of land measuring 381 bigha 8 biswas comprised in Khewat Khatuni No. 20/56-66 (old) and Khewat Khatuni No. 23/53-63 (new) situated in Mauza Nehra Kandhol, Pargana Boachali, Tehsil and District Solan. They pleaded that the land was in possession of their forefathers since time immemorial and after partition, the same was in their individual and exclusive possession. They also raised the plea of adverse possession by asserting that their possession over the suit land was continuous, open and uninterrupted and the same had never been used by the village community for common purposes. They further pleaded that the land has been wrongly recorded as 'Shamlat Deh' in the revenue record and by taking advantage of the wrong entry, it was mutated in the name of the State and illegally allotted to some persons. They prayed for correction of the revenue entries, cancellation of the illegal allotments and for restraining the appellants from interfering with their ownership and possession.
B. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants, it was pleaded that the suit land had vested in the Government and the same is being used by the villagers as 'Shamlat land'. The claim of the respondents that they are the owners in possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors was controverted by asserting that they do not have any right, title or interest over it except the right of grazing etc. The respondents' assertion that they are in individual possession of the suit land was also denied. It was then averred that the suit land is banzar and charad and the revenue entries are correct. The plea of adverse possession raised by the respondents was contested by asserting that the land was 'shamlat' and the same was being used by the villagers. The allotment made in favour of landless persons was defended by asserting that the State Government was competent to do so. The appellants also questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground of non compliance of S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Another plea taken by them was that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the suit.
C. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1) Whether plaintiffs from the time of forefathers are coming in possession of the suit land as owners, as alleged? OPP.
2) Whether the suit land has never been brought in use by the entire village for common use? OPP.
3) Whether revenue entries about the suit land are wrong, illegal? OPP.
4) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP
5) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.
6) Whether t