ORDER : Brijesh Kumar, J. - The present appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissing the revision petition preferred by the appellant in a proceeding for execution of decree. 2. The case seems to have some chequered history and vexed facts but we feel for the disposal of this matter it will not be necessary to go into the details. It appears that originally the agricultural land in dispute was held by one Hari Ram. After his death, his wife Smt Phulman executed a patta in favour of Nauranga who came to occupy the land in capacity as a tenant thereof. The aforesaid patta was executed sometime in 1946. Later, however, sometime in 1948, one Rambhu claiming as one of the reversioners, being the son of the daughter of Hari Ram, filed a suit saying that patta executed by Smt Phulman in favour of Nauranga would not be binding on the reversioners. The suit was decreed and the appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed. Phulman and Nauranga are also said to be parties to the aforesaid litigation. 3. Thereafter in 1962 Jai Kishen, one of the heirs of Hari Ram filed a suit against Badri Lal and other sons of Nauranga claiming possession of the land in question, apparently on the ground that the patta executed by Smt Phulman in favour of Nauranga had been held to be not binding on the reversioners by means of the decree passed in the suit filed by Rambhu. The suit was dismissed in 1967 but the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, namely, Jai Kishen was allowed on 7-9-1968. The appeal against the order passed by the first appellate court was dismissed. A special leave petition was filed in this Court. This Court granted the leave and Civil Appeal No. 122 (N) of 1974 was dismissed by this Court on 1-4-19871. It appears that Badri Lal had died in the meantime hence it was filed by his legal heirs and other surviving parties. Jai Kishen and Ram Lal were the respondents in the abovesaid appeal. A perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 1-4-1987 indicates that the centre of controversy related to the effect and implication of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the rights of Smt Phulman and those in whose favour she has executed the patta. 4. Jai Kishen and Ram Lal were the respondents in the abovesaid appeal. A perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 1-4-1987 indicates that the centre of controversy related to the effect and implication of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the rights of Smt Phulman and those in whose favour she has executed the patta. 4. In the meantime, yet another development took place and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was enacted (Act 8 of 1974) and enforced in 1974 making provisions about the rights of the landholders and reforms relating to agricultural land in the State of H.P. Section 104 of the Act falls in Chapter X particularly dealing with the rights which are acquired by the occupants of the land. The appellants before us moved the authorities concerned, namely, the Assistant Collector under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and an order in their favour was passed by the Assistant Collector conferring rights of occupancy tenants upon them. 5. In the year 1988, proceedings for execution of the decree were initiated by Smt Krishna Devi, d/o Jai Kishen D.H. and his son Ved Parkash and others. Objections also seem to have been preferred against the execution by Girdhari Lal and others, namely, the LRs and the descendants of Nauranga but they were dismissed by the execution court by order dated 25-5-1988. Ultimately the matter was taken to the High Court in Civil Revision No. 100 of 1988 which was dismissed on 22-8-1988, and it is the subject-matter and impugned order in the present appeal. The revision petition was preferred by Jai Dev, s/o Badri Lal who was the son of Nauranga. Smt Krishna Devi, w/o Jai Kishen and his sons and others were the respondents who had obtained the decree against Badri Lal and others. It also transpires that in the meantime earlier appeal in this Court, namely, CA No. 122 of 1974, Girdharilal v. Jaikishan, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 292 was decided on 1-4-1987. An application for contempt was also moved on behalf of Jai Kishen and other respondents in that appeal for initiating proceedings for contempt of court against the Assistant Collector who had passed the order on the petition of Girdhari Lal and others conferring rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. An application for contempt was also moved on behalf of Jai Kishen and other respondents in that appeal for initiating proceedings for contempt of court against the Assistant Collector who had passed the order on the petition of Girdhari Lal and others conferring rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The main ground, it appears, was that since the matter was pending before this Court in appeal, the Assistant Collector should not have passed any order. It may be indicated as mentioned earlier also that the question which was under consideration in this Court in CA No. 122 of 19741 centred around the effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the rights of Smt Phulman who had executed the patta in favour of Nauranga. It is no doubt true that a mention has also been made in the order of this Court dated 10-4-1987 about creation of occupancy right by Smt Phulman by patta and it was observed "successfully impeached by a suit brought by Rambhu, the daughter's son of Smt Phulman as a reversioner and he obtained a declaratory decree that the alienation of the property was null and void against the reversioners and that decree undoubtedly survived". But so far the application which was moved for initiating the proceedings for contempt against the Assistant Collector for passing order under Section 104 of H.P. Act 8 of 1974 was dismissed. We also find that no observation about the order passed by the Assistant Collector conferring rights upon the heirs of Nauranga was made, though the same seem to have been taken note of by this Court while disposing of Appeal No. 122 of 19741. The proceedings and the order passed by Assistant Collector under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 remained untouched. 6. Now coming back to the order passed by the High Court impugned in this appeal, we find that the High Court in the order observed that the plea and objection regarding tenancy rights acquired under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was raised before the Supreme Court and in that connection the learned Judge has also referred to para 36 of the special leave petition and ultimately observed that order passed by the Supreme Court on 1-4-19871 will be deemed to have negatived the above plea raised by necessary implication. The mere fact that this Court was made aware of the order passed by the Assistant Collector by mentioning it in the special leave petition or by moving an application for initiating proceedings for contempt as moved by the respondents, does not mean that this Court has decided that issue as well. Rather this Court makes no mention of that plea or objection put forth or raised by other party. The application for initiating the proceedings for contempt moved by the respondent was dismissed. A whole reading of the order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 19741 shows that this Court had not ever adverted to that aspect of the matter at all pertaining to conferment of rights by order of the Assistant Collector under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court that the plea raised by the petitioners is to be taken to have been impliedly negatived by this Court cannot be sustained. 7. We find that there is yet another aspect of the matter. After coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the Assistant Collector, is an authority under the Act, competent to deal with such matters and pass appropriate orders granting or refusing the relief as may be prayed for under Section 104 of the Act. It was open to the respondents to raise any objection indicating the consequences or implications of any order or judgment or decree passed by different courts, including this Court, to the authority concerned competent to pass an appropriate order under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Besides raising such objections, the Act also makes provisions for filing an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Collector and thereafter a revision before the appropriate forums as well, as provided in the Act itself. The respondents did not seem to have resorted to any of the remedies available to them under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The order passed under Section 104 of the said Act still stands and remains unchallenged, it was never challenged through the machinery provided under the statutory provisions for impugning such orders. The respondents did not seem to have resorted to any of the remedies available to them under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The order passed under Section 104 of the said Act still stands and remains unchallenged, it was never challenged through the machinery provided under the statutory provisions for impugning such orders. The view of the High Court that by necessary implication the plea of the appellants regarding rights acquired under Section 104 of the Act, having necessarily been negatived, cannot be sustained. The position thus, as it stands is, that the order of the appropriate authority under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act conferring rights as statutorily provided under the said statute, as a later development by change in legal position, cannot be ignored. The objections, therefore, as raised by the appellants deserved to be upheld. 8. In the result we allow the appeal and uphold the objections to the execution of decree, raised by the appellants and set aside the order passed by the High Court. We would, however, like to clarify that in case any remedy is still available to the respondents under the law to question the order passed by the authorities under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 will not be effected on merits because of this order. 9. There will be no order as to costs.