Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). 1. This appeal by the defendants-appellants is directed against the judgment dated 16.4.1999 of learned District Judge, whereby, affirming the decree dated 20.2.1984 of learned trial Court, decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs, appeal of the appellants/defendants was dismissed. 2. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from causing any interference in their possession over the suit land, which, as per entries in Jamabandi, is recorded in the ownership of the State, but in possession of the respondents-plaintiffs as tenants. 3. Respondents-plaintiffs pleaded that they were in possession of the suit land, though the same was entered in the ownership of the State, and that the defendants, without any right or title, were threatening to disturb their possession. Suit was contested by the defendants-appellants, who claimed that initially land was shamlat land and it vested in the Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and that after coming into force of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, it vested in the State and was thrown into reserved pool. It was denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. Instead, it was stated that all the right holders (tikadars) of the village had been using the land for common purposes. 4. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs-respondents were in exclusive possession. Appellants - defendants appealed against the decree of learned trial Court. Learned District Judge has dismissed the appeal. 5. This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondents as filed be held to be maintainable in the absence of such necessary parties, such as, State of Himachal Pradesh and Tikadarans when the claim made by the plaintiff-Respondents were adversely effecting their rights, was not such suit bad for non joinder of necessary parties and ought to have been dismissed under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the courts below have taken a wrong approach in the matter by misreading the Ex. DW, Wazibul-urz which establish the rights of Tikadarans over the land in dispute to exercise bartandari rights particularly when the land in dispute was recorded as Nihari (place for burial of children and animals)? 2. Whether the courts below have taken a wrong approach in the matter by misreading the Ex. DW, Wazibul-urz which establish the rights of Tikadarans over the land in dispute to exercise bartandari rights particularly when the land in dispute was recorded as Nihari (place for burial of children and animals)? Was not it incumbent for the courts below to have decided the existence of such rights or whether such rights were enforceable or extinguished on the enforcement of the H.P.Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilisation Act. Could the suit of the plaintiff be decreed merely by holding that the tikadarans were not exercising such rights, are not such findings erroneous, perverse and contrary to the material available on the record? 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Appellants-defendants raised an objection that the suit was bad for non joinder of State of H.P. and all the right holders (tikadars) of the village. It was stated that when the State was recorded as owner of the land and the land had been included in the reserved pool and was being used by all the right holders, impleadment of the State of H.P., as also all the right holders, was necessary. 8. Objection is without merit. Plaintiffs-respondents have sued for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellants-defendants from causing any interference in their possession. They have not sought any relief against the State of H.P. or any other right holders. According to them, they were in exclusive possession of the suit land, even prior to its vestment in the State as the land had been leased out to them by the Panchayat. There is an entry in the rojnamcha, copy Ex.P-7. This entry was made in the year 1969. As per this entry, Panchayat, which was then the owner of the suit land, on account of its vestment in it by virtue of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, created lease in respect of the suit land in favour of appellants-defendants, on annual rent of 75 paise per kanal. Ever since, entries in the revenue papers, including Jamabandis, reflect names of the plaintiffs –respondents in the column of possession. Ever since, entries in the revenue papers, including Jamabandis, reflect names of the plaintiffs –respondents in the column of possession. They have every right to remain in possession, until they are evicted from the suit land, by the Collector, acting under Section 4 of the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974. Respondents-plaintiffs have no threat as of now from the State or the Collector and, therefore, State is not necessary party. So is the case with respect to other right holders (tikadars) of the revenue estate concerned. There is no allegation that anybody other than the defendants is threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs. Hence, question No. 1 is answered against the appellants-defendants. 9. Appellants-defendants themselves pleaded that the land had vested in the State. They also pleaded that the land had been included in the reserved pool, which means that the same is reserved for use by the State for its own purposes, including development. Therefore, appellants-defendants cannot be heard to say that they have any right of user qua the suit land. When the land has vested in the State according to appellants-defendants’ own plea, the vestment is free from all encumbrances and right, title or interest in or over the land, per Section 3 of the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974. So, this question is also answered against the appellants-defendants. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.