JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The main controversy arising in between the parties to the instant regular second appeal is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain any try the suit in view of section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974 ? The other substantial questions of law pertain to the question of limitation, status of the plaintiffs as owners on the ground that they earlier were tenants of the land in question. 2. Shortly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :— 3. The controversy in between the parties pertain to the land measuring 21 bighas 7 biswas situate in village Bhalechri, Pargana Malaun, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 (hereinafter shortly referred to as "the suit land") The suit land being of the nature of Shamlaat land belonged to Gram Panchayat, Bheonkhari, Pargana Malaun, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. Earlier the ancestors of the plaintiffs had been cultivating this land as Chakautadars under the Panchayat on payment of fixed Chakauta since the year 1958. Subsequently the Panchayat passed a resolution on 15-6-1965 and the suit land was further given for cultivation purpose to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Shri Sees Ram and Shri Jiwanoo, sons of Shri Mathu Ram on usual fixed Chakauta. Plaintiffs further assert that on the expiry of the fixed period of five years, a Pattanama pertaining thereto was issued by the Assistant Collector, a representative of the defendant. In crux, the case of the plaintiffs is that since the land in suit continued to bfc in possession of the tenants and proforma respondents, they became owners by virtue of H. P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (enforced on 21-2-1974) (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Reforms Act") In subsequent revenue record, defendant was recorded as owner of the suit land, whereby the plaintiffs were aggrieved This change pursuant to the action of the defendant culminated into the filing of the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction sought a decree restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession thereof. Plaintiffs also sought the leave of the Court for instituting the suit without serving a notice upon the defendant/State as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Defendant resisted and contested the suit by raising various preliminary objections with respect to jurisdiction, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the defendant contended that the plain tiffs and proforma respondents neither cultivated the suit land as alleged nor it vested in the Gram Panchayat aforesaid nor the said Gram Panchayat was competent to induct the plaintiffs to be tenants over the suit land for a fixed period on a fixed Chakauta. It is asserted that the suit land had vested in the State free from encumbrances under the Act. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues and on appraisal of the evidence adduced by them, the suit was decreed. It would be worthwhile to state that the defendant did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to that of the plaintiffs despite opportunity having been given to it. The impugned judgment of the trial Court was appealed against by the defendant unsuccessfully, which resulted into the filing of the instant regular second appeal, 6. I have heard Shri V. K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General at length. He has also drawn my attention to the entire record and the evidence adduced by the parties. He has very capably argued that the material adduced on record by the plaintiffs is not sufficient for holding that they were cultivating the suit land as tenants at the relevant time. According to him, the Panchayat was not competent to induct the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs a tenants on the suit land He further urged that the suit land had vested in the State Government under the Act free from encumbrances and thus, the plaintiffs being tresspassers, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. At the very outset, after closely examining the record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no substance in the appeal and the same merits dismissal. 8. 7. At the very outset, after closely examining the record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no substance in the appeal and the same merits dismissal. 8. As observed above, the controversy in question solely depends upon the appreciation of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs for the reason that the defendant (now appellant) did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal to that of the former despite opportunity having been afforded to it. The documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs shows that they were in cultivating possession of the suit land since the year 1958 Ext. PW1 is the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 Plaintiffs and proforma defendants are depicted as non-occupancy tenants of the suit land under the State Government on payment of fixed Chakauta of Rs 8 50 per annum. Ext. PW-2/A is the Pattanama in Form No, VIII which shows the conferment of ownership rights of some land in favour of the plaintiffs which was executed on 15-6-1966 Reading thereof indicates that the mode of payment of Nazrana was undertaken by the executants. The said Nazrana was to be paid in February 1966 and February 1967. There is a notice purporting to have been issued by the Assistant Collector, Nalagarh, whereby the plaintiffs were called upon to pay the fixed Chakauta by 17-11-1981. It is true that this Pattanama does not refer to the particulars of the land, but according to the pleadings of the plaintiffs and their oral as also documentary evidence, the same pertains to the suit land. In the written statement, defendant has simply denied the issuance of the Pattanama. The said Pattanama has been proved on record by the Pradhan of the Panchayat, namely, Shri Babu Ram, No evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the defendant as observed above. Thus, the cumulative effect of the entire material indicated above shows that not only the plaintiffs, but also their predecessbrs-in-interest had been cultivating the suit land regarding which Pattanama had been issued by the defendant through its representative, namely, Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Nalagarh. In any case, the above evidence indicates that the defendant admitted the plaintiffs to be the tenants over the suit land when they directed the latter to pay the fixed Chakauta of Rs. In any case, the above evidence indicates that the defendant admitted the plaintiffs to be the tenants over the suit land when they directed the latter to pay the fixed Chakauta of Rs. 8 50 pertaining thereto on or before 17-11-1981, Once the plaintiffs are proved to be the tenants and in actual continuous possession of the suit land since the year 1958, and defendant having taken no steps to show that the predecessors-in-interest or the plaintiffs had been evicted or any attempt was made therefor, the only irresistible conclusion which can be arrived at from the abovesaid material is that the plaintiffs were tenants earlier under the Gram Panchayat and later on they were admitted to be so by the defendant. Learned Assistant Advocate General has not disputed the fact regarding the automatic operation of the Land Reforms Act in respect of the conferment of the proprietary rights of the land in occupation of the tenants. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs being tenants in the suit land since much prior to the vesting thereof in the defendant, have become the owners of the suit land. The courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and came to a right conclusion. 9. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeal merits dismissal, which is accordingly ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.