JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J. (Oral): Plaintiff is in second appeal before this court. Suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claiming that she is in possession of the suit land as owner and the entry showing ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh is wrong, illegal and in-operative on her rights. It was further pleaded that the suit land was never Shamlat Deh nor it vested in the Panchayat nor could be vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh by operation of law i.e. by virtue of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974. A decree of injunction was also claimed restraining the defendant from interfering in the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land. 2. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the State of Hrmachal Pradesh that the land was Shamlat Deh earlier to its vesting in the Gram Panchayat and rightly came to vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh by operation of law. It was further pleaded that the possession of the plaintiff is that of a trespasser and is not entitled to the decree prayed for by him 3. On appreciation of evidence placed on record by the parties, the trial Court held in Para No.20 that the plaintiff though has not proved to be the owner of the suit land but is in its possession, the land was earlier Shamlat Deh and the change of ownership in the name of State of Himachal Pradesh is legal. In the relief it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the decree that she is in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years prior to coining into force the Punjab Act of 1961 and despites vesting in the Panchayat and thereafter in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Act her rights of possession would not be effected and changed and she is legally entitled to retain the possession of the land despite its vesting in the State of H.P. The defendant-State has further been restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff or dispossessing her from the suit land. 4. The defendants assailed this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the plaintiff also failed cross objections as she had not been granted full relief by the trial Court and had not been held to be owner of the suit land. 4. The defendants assailed this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the plaintiff also failed cross objections as she had not been granted full relief by the trial Court and had not been held to be owner of the suit land. 5. As I look at the judgment passed by the trial Court Para No.20 when read with the relief it is not happily worded. Once it has been found -Kat that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years prior to coming into force of the Punjab Act question of the vesting of land in the Panchayat and thereafter in the State of Himachal Pradesh could not arise. Be that as it may. The appeal filed by the State stands allowed by the learned first appellate Court and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff have been dismissed. It is in this situation that the plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 6. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contends that the learned first appellate Court has mis-read, mis-construed and mis-interpreted the evidence on record which has resulted in mis-carriage of justice. It is pointed out that in the light of the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50 Ex.P-3 it could not be held that the plaintiff has not been able to show that the land in dispute was in his individual cultivating possession before 26.1.1950. 7. It is further being argued that the learned first appellate Court has wrongly held that the possession of the plaintiff starts somewhere in the year 1965-66 and thus the provisions of Sub Section 3 of Section 4 of the Punjab Act, 1961 would not apply. 8. Learned State Counsel Mrs. Shayam Dogra in reply contends that the land has legally vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh by operation of law and once it has so vested the questions being raised by the plaintiff cannot be gone into. It is further submitted that the entry in favour of Gram Panchayat came to be recorded in the year 1953-54 and has continued like this till the land came to vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the above said Act. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and after carefully going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and after carefully going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. As I look at the matter, this case has to be decided on the basis of the entries framing record-of-rights and the oral evidence led by the parties cannot be taken notice of Ex.P-1 is the Jamabandi for the year 1951 and s based on settlement. Khasra No. 119 is recorded under ownership of Shamlat Hasab-Rasab Araji Khewt. In the column of cultivation Makbuja Malkan is recorded. The land is recorded as Banjar Kadim Charand. The entry in the column front is blank. In the Jamabandi for the year 1949-50 Ex P3 Krishna and one Ram Saran are recorded in the column of ownership as owners to the extent of 1/2 share each. In the column of cultivation the name of Ram Saran Hisadar as vendor is recorded whereas Punu son of Tidu is recorded as vendee having purchased land from Ram Saran including his share in the Shamlat Deh. 10. Immediately below this entry, Punnu has been recorded as owner as well as in possession in that capacity. Ex.P.2 is the pedigree table which the plaintiff has placed on the record to connect herself with the proprietary body. Ex.P-4 is Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 where the plaintiff is recorded to be owner of land which is a different piece of land than the one in dispute. This Jamabandi appears to have been placed on record possible with the view to prove that she is a proprietor in the village. There is jamabandi for the year 19-53-54 at pages 43 and 44 of the record but is not exhibited. Being jamabandi which is perse admissible same is hereby marked as Ex. PX for purposes of identification. In this jamabandi under the column of proprietorship Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat Malkan appears. The column of rent is blank. Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 Ex.P5 records Nagar Panchayat Deh as owner and Mst. besru widow of Punnu i.e. the plaintiff in the column of cultivation. Column No.9 pertaining to rent records Bila Legan Wabajs Nautor. There is Jamabandi for the years 1985-86 and a mistake again appears to be exhibited as P-l at pages 139/140 of the record. Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 Ex.P5 records Nagar Panchayat Deh as owner and Mst. besru widow of Punnu i.e. the plaintiff in the column of cultivation. Column No.9 pertaining to rent records Bila Legan Wabajs Nautor. There is Jamabandi for the years 1985-86 and a mistake again appears to be exhibited as P-l at pages 139/140 of the record. Notice of this Jamabandi has already been taken above which is for the year 1915. Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 Ex.P-2 again records similar entries. Some of the Jamabandies Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 have been wrongly, exhibited as such. These are of the years 1875-76, 1970-71 and 1965-66. As I look at the record, the plaintiff is recorded as owner in possession in the jamabandi for the year 1949-50 Ex.P3. This land she has purchased from a co-sharer in the Shamlat Deh whose name was Ram Saran. He has admittedly sold this land to the husband of the plaintiff including his share in the Shamlat Deh. Besides this land, Punnu had another piece of and independently as owner. No case he has been made out that the plaintiff was in possession of excess share to which she was otherwise entitled to. 11. The learned first appellate court thus has gone wrong in holding that the possession of the plaintiff is projected for the first time in the year 1965-66. As per jamabandi for the year 1949-50 which in my opinion is decisive, possession of the plaintiff can be put to more than 12 years prior to the coming into force of the Punjab Act, 1961. In fact trial Court recorded these findings but has strangely proceeded to hold further that though plaintiff is in possession for 12 years prior to coming into force the Punjab Act out the vesting of land in question in State of H.P. is valid and legal. 12. Once it is found that the land was Shamlat Deh and was in possession ci the proprietors as Hasab-Rasab Araji Khcwat Malkan the same could not be mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat unless and until it was piv cd that it is being used by the villagers for common purposes. This evidence is completely lacking. 12. Once it is found that the land was Shamlat Deh and was in possession ci the proprietors as Hasab-Rasab Araji Khcwat Malkan the same could not be mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat unless and until it was piv cd that it is being used by the villagers for common purposes. This evidence is completely lacking. On the other hand evidence has been brought on record to show that the plaintiff has raised a house on the site in dispute and has further developed this land by cultivation and raising of trees. It can further be held on the basis of the revenue record that the plaintiff has not been paying any rent or any other charges to any authority whatsoever. Rather her possession is recorded as Dereena. In some of the documents is recorded as Bila Lagan Wabaja Nautor. 13. Examining the case in the light of the revenue record, it cannot be held that the land rightly came to vest in the Panchayat and thereafter in the State of Himachal Pradesh. 14. In view of what has been stated above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is also modified to the extent that the plaintiff is held to be the owner in possession of the suit land. She is further entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-State from interfering in her right, title and interest in the suit land. The suit filed by the plaintiff is ordered to be decreed in these terms. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed