ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996 (Act 3 of 1996) has further amended the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 and validated certain actions taken in relation to the making or special revision of the record-of-rights in the State. Learned counsel adds that the revision of record-of-rights in the State is, therefore, to be made in accordance with the law so amended with retrospective effect; and the directions to the contrary in the impugned judgment of the High Court rendered prior to the enactment of Act 3 of 1996 have become infructuous. 2. Learned counsel also submits that no specific relief has been granted to any individual by the impugned judgment which merely gives some directions regarding the general revision of record-of-rights. For this reason, learned counsel submits that it is not necessary for the State Government to pursue this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, while conceding that the effect of the aforesaid Act 3 of 1996 is to amend the law relating to revision of record-of-rights, further submits that the effect thereof is not to render infructuous all the directions given in the impugned judgment. According to learned counsel for the respondents, some part of these directions remains effective even after the enactment of Act 3 of 1996. He also stated that the g validity of Act 3 of 1996 has also been challenged by a separate writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. 4. In view of the common ground emerging from the above submissions, it appears to us that it is needless to consider the merits of the points raised in this appeal since even according to the appellant State of Himachal Pradesh h the directions given in the impugned judgment are no longer effective having been rendered infructuous by the subsequently enacted Act 3 of 1996. 5. Moreover, there is no relief granted to any specific individual and the directions relate to the general revision of record-of-rights in the State which obviously has to be governed by the existing law applicable at the time of performance of the exercise. 5. Moreover, there is no relief granted to any specific individual and the directions relate to the general revision of record-of-rights in the State which obviously has to be governed by the existing law applicable at the time of performance of the exercise. If any grievance is made of non-compliance with any of the alleged surviving directions by the State Government before the High Court, it would be open to the State Government to show that the same have become infructuous for the reason given by them and in that situation it would be for the High Court to decide the contention on merits. 6. In view of the statement made on behalf of the appellants that the directions given in the impugned judgment have become infructuous, the appeal is disposed of accordingly, without deciding any point on merits.