JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed. The plaintiffs standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions against them by both the learned Courts below, concert through the instant appeal constituted before this Court, to seek reversal of the concurrently recorded judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiffs stated to be permanent residents of village Panjethi, Illaqua Pachhiat, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi and are having their immovable and moveable property in village Panjethi. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are having Bartandari rights according to Naksha Bartan and Uajiw UI Arj in the land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 59 min/115, Khasra No. 162 measuring 8-0-9 bighas, situated in village Pajethi/365, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. which is a part of UPF and DPF and Jungle Gandharav and is situated close to the house of the plaintiffs who have right to protect the forest and to maintain ecological balance having nourished few spices of trees under the Social forestry scheme and are having right of lopping leaves from the fodder plants and collecting fuel wood etc. from the suit land. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendants No.1 and 2 without having any jurisdiction or power to allot the land to defendant No.3 allotted Khasra No. 162/1 measuring 2-6-7 bighas out of the suit land to defendant No.3. It is further alleged that no allotment could have been made within the municipal area or in view of the provisions of the Conservation of Forests Act and as such the allotment made to defendant No.3 is null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs was resisted by defendants on the ground of jurisdiction and locus standi. The pendency of litigation between defendant No. 3 and Ram Singh has not been disputed but it is alleged that as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court Nautor land had rightly been granted to defendant No.3 under the Special Scheme. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs was resisted by defendants on the ground of jurisdiction and locus standi. The pendency of litigation between defendant No. 3 and Ram Singh has not been disputed but it is alleged that as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court Nautor land had rightly been granted to defendant No.3 under the Special Scheme. It is further alleged that if anybody is aggrieved by the grant of nautor he could do so by challenging the said order before the Deputy Commissioner and if the Deputy Commissioner does not take any action, the plaintiffs could file an appeal before the Commissioner or challenge the order before the Hon’ble High Court. It is also alleged that the land comprised in Khasra No. 162 is not situated in the DPF Ghandharv. The rights of the plaintiffs of lopping the leaves, collecting fodder from DPF Gandharav is denied by the defendants and according to them the suit land was earlier neither UPF nor DPF and has wrongly been converted into UPF and DPF. 4. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiffs the averments as contained in the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement contrary to the plaint were refuted. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- (1) Whether the plaintiffs have Bartandari rights over the suit land, as alleged? OPP. (2) Whether the allotment of the part of the suit land to the defendant No.3 by the defendants No. 1 and 2 is null and void? OPP. (2) A. Whether the allotment is in contravention of mandatory provision of Conservation of Forest Act, 1980, and therefore, is null and void? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction? OPP. 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide this suit? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file this suit? OPD. 5-A Whether the plaintiffs have prescriptive easement rights of getting fresh air, Bartandari rights, collecting fuel woods and leaves fodder from the trees from the forefathers as claimed, as alleged? OPP. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs besides the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred therefrom before it by the plaintiffs. OPP. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs besides the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred therefrom before it by the plaintiffs. 7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 1.12.2004, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the First Appellate Court as well as the trial Court has misread, misinterpreted and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties especially Ext.PZ/A, Ext.P4 to P-6 and statement of PW-2, which has materially caused miscarriage and failure of justice to the appellants? 2. Whether the order dated 18.08.1994 is against the UPF and DPF Rules and the allotment order is prima facie null and void having no binding force upon the Bartandari rights of the appellants? Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2. 8. For the plaintiffs to attain success in their suit wherein they sought relief of cancellation of allotment by way of Nautor of the suit land to defendant No.3 by defendants No. 1 and 2 they stood enjoined to adduce clinching prove qua the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 162 constituting a part of UDF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’ upsurgings whereof would sequel the ill-fate of its apposite allotment standing rescinded. Also the plaintiffs stood enjoined to adduce evidence in portrayal of theirs as espoused by them in the plaint holding therein Bartandari rights, rights whereof stood reflected in the relevant “Naksha Bartan Vajiw Ul Arj”. Both the Courts below had validated the allotment of the suit land to defendant No.3 on the anvil of there existing no apposite notification in depiction of the suit land falling within the domain of UPF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’. The reason as assigned by the learned Courts below for theirs hence withholding relief to the plaintiffs qua allotment of the suit land to defendant No. 3 by defendants No. 1 and 2 warranting rescission wanders astray from the deposition of PW-2 the Forest Guard of the beat concerned, who in his testification unequivocally voices therein qua Jungle Gandharav standing in the apposite records reflected to be DPF. Even though he in his cross-examination feigns ignorance qua Khasra No.162 standing allotted as Nautor to defendant No.3 also he therein feigns ignorance qua the khasra number allotted as Nautor to defendant No.3 by defendants No. 1 and 2 falling within the domain of DPF or UDF, whereupon hence an inference may stand aroused of the plaintiffs not succeeding in proving qua the suit land falling within the domain of UDF and DPF Jungle Gandharav yet the aforesaid inference as may erupt therefrom ipso facto stands negated by a display occurring in Ext.D-2, the jamabandi apposite to the suit land wherein it stands reflected to be UPF and DPF. It appears that the testimony of PW-2 was enjoined to be read in entwinement with Ext.D-2 rather than in isolation therefrom. However, his deposition standing read in isolation vis-a-vis reflections aforesaid qua the suit land occurring in Ext.D-2 has led them to merely on his feigning ignorance qua the location of the Khasra number wherein allotment of land by way of Nautor was made to defendant No. 3 by defendants. 1 and 2, score off, his testimony of hence his not proving the factum of the suit land falling within the domain of UPF and DPF Jungle Gandharav whereas at the outset he in his testification echoes of Jungle Gandharav being a UDF and DPF wherein uncontrovertedly as denoted by Ext.D-2 the suit land stands located. Given the learned courts below subsuming the effect of Ext.D-2 also of theirs concluding qua the suit land not falling within the domain of UPF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’ palpably stands sequelled by the rendition of this Court pronounced in Civil Writ Petition No. 16 of 1991 wherein this Court had rendered a verdict qua allotment of land by way of Nautor to the petitioner, hence, constraining them to erect an inference qua its unamenability for rescission. However, the aforesaid inference erected by the Courts below qua hence inviolability of apposite allotment of land by way of Nautor to defendant No.3 by defendants No. 1 and 2 besides its unamenability for rescission when stands breached by evidence palpably displaying its location occurring in UPF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’ enjoins this Court to cull out from the pronouncement of this Court comprised in Ext.PZ/F qua this Court therein rendering a direction upon the allottees to dehors its location occurring in UPF and DPF Jungle Gandharav theirs yet proceeding to allot it to defendant No.3. In the aforesaid endeavour this Court proceeds to allude to the relevant portion of the pronouncement of this Court embodied in Ext.PZ/F, an allusion thereto unravels the factum of therein this Court meteing a direction to the Deputy Commissioner Mandi to allot, mutate and give land to defendant No.3 allotment whereof stood enjoined therein to occur in the very same Khasra Number wherein the land of the complainant/appellant therein occurs. However, there is no mandate rendered therein upon the allottors to proceed to allot it even when it is un-allotable under law. Though, in pursuance to Ext.PZ/F the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, allotted land to defendant No.3 yet his hence implementing the directions of this Court embodied in Ext.PZ/F would not ipso facto validate the allotment of the suit land by way of Nautour to defendant No.3 unless the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi had satisfied himself of the suit land being legally allotable to defendant No.3 it not falling within the domain of UDF and DPF Jungle Gandharav. Also in the event of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi detecting the suit land to be the land allotable by way of Nautor to defendant No.3, its, adjoining the land of Ram Singh appellant/complainant in Cr.MP(M) No. 993/93 whereupon Ext.PZ/F stood pronounced by this Court, pronouncement embodied therein did not brook its standing breached, he stood also enjoined to prior thereto make a thorough inquiry qua its being legally allotable to defendant No.3 besides when in the course of a thorough inquiry held/embarked upon by him qua the legality of allotment of land adjoining the land of Ram Singh, his fathoming therefrom it being unallotable to defendant No.3, unallotability whereof stood spurred from its falling within the precincts of UDF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’ as palpably depicted in Ext.D-2, exhibit whereof though existing in his records whereas the apposite manifestation occurring therein stood purportedly overlooked by him rather enjoined him to unveil the fate of his inquiry to this Court, for constraining it to make a review of its order pronounced in Cr.MP(M) No. 993/93. Prominently when this Court had not rendered a verdict upon the allottors to allot it even when it was legally unallotable. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi omitted to do so. His omissions palpably has sequelled the legal mishap of his proceeding to make allotment of that part of the suit land to defendant No.3 despite it being unallotable to him, its standing located within UPF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’, its location wherewithin as manifested by a pronouncement of this Court in Civil Writ Petition 16 of 1991 interdicted its allotment by way of Nautor to defendant No.3. Consequently, even if the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi implemented the orders of this Court pronounced in Cr.MP(M) No. 993/93 yet his omissions in the aforesaid regard impinging upon its allotment to defendant No.3 standing concomitantly interdicted, would not clothe the allotment of the suit land by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi to defendant No.3 with any aura of solemnity or validity. Reiteratedly, even though defendant No.3 revered the pronouncement of this Court yet he breached the legal cannon of its being unallotable, fate whereof was obviable in case he had concerted this Court to make a review of its order by motioning it. Reiteratedly, even though defendant No.3 revered the pronouncement of this Court yet he breached the legal cannon of its being unallotable, fate whereof was obviable in case he had concerted this Court to make a review of its order by motioning it. In sequel any findings recorded by both the Courts below for validating the allotment of the suit land to defendant No.3 by defendants No. 1 and 2 on the anchorage of the rendition of this Court pronounced in Ext.PZ/F stands not founded upon theirs marshalling therefrom its proper spirit besides nuance rather stands embedded upon gross mis-appreciation by them of the impact of Ext.D-2 wherein palpable revelations are held of it falling within the precincts of UPF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’ rendering hence its allotment as manifested by a pronouncement of this Court occurring in Civil Writ Petition No. 16 of 1991, relevant portion whereof stands extracted hereinafter, to be legally barred. “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, we are clearly of the opinion that the land in question is not Nautor land and could not for that reason be allotted/granted as Nautor land to either the petitioner or anyone else. The revenue record, Annexure R/2 clearly indicates that the land is recorded in possession of the Forest Department and is undemarcated protected Forest and for that reason could not have been treated to be a Nautor land and allotted either to the petitioner or anyone else. It is not even the petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to allotment of forest land. In this view of the matter the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is strictly in accordance with the scheme.” 9. Both the Courts below had also dispelled the espousal of the plaintiffs of theirs holding any Bartandari rights qua user of the suit land on the score of the plaintiffs not adducing “Naksha Bartan” or other relevant record from the department concerned. However, the aforesaid dispelling of the espousal of the plaintiffs stands aroused by theirs grossly overlooking the impact of Ext.PZ/A comprising the “Wajiw Ul Arj” qua the relevant area, with a disclosure therein of customary rights inhering in the estate right holders for using forest land. However, the aforesaid dispelling of the espousal of the plaintiffs stands aroused by theirs grossly overlooking the impact of Ext.PZ/A comprising the “Wajiw Ul Arj” qua the relevant area, with a disclosure therein of customary rights inhering in the estate right holders for using forest land. Since a clinching conclusion stands drawn by this Court qua the suit land falling within the precincts of UPF and DPF Jungle Gandharav besides with PW-2 deposing of the estates of the plaintiffs standing located in close vicinity to Jungle Gandharav sprouts an inference of with manifestations standing unraveled in Ext.PZ/A, exhibit whereof constituting the apposite “Wajiw Ul Arj” qua customary rights inhering in the estate holders qua user of forest land located in vicinity to their estates, apposite revelations wherein embody all the purposes as stand embodied in the plaint. Consequently, with apposite delineations occurring in Ext.PZ/A of the plaintiffs holding leverage to exercise rights therein in incongruity with their staked user of adjoining Jungle Gandharav wherein the suit land is located it was inapt for both the learned Courts below to conclude of with the plaintiffs omitting to adduce evidence in display of theirs holding “Bartandari rights” therein of theirs hence standing barred to stake a claim for user of the suit land in the manner as espoused by them prominently when the conclusion arrived at by them suffers from gross mis-appreciation by them of the import of Ext.PZ/A. Even otherwise with a display occurring in Ext.D-2, the jamabandi apposite to the suit land with markings therein of the estate holders holding “Bartandaran rights”, rights whereof viz-a-viz. the forest land adjoining their lands were exercisable by them in consonance with the apposite depictions in the relevant record, records whereof for reasons aforesaid stand comprised in Ext.PZ/A, the mere non adduction of list of “Bartan Darans” by the plaintiffs nor also the non occurrence therein of the names of the plaintiffs was not a tenable ground for the learned Courts below to repel their espousal of theirs holding rights as ‘Bartan Darans’ qua the suit land besides the forest land adjoining it. Since the suit land stood owned prior to its allotment to defendant No.3 by defendants No. 1 and 2 by the latter besides its falling within the domain of UDF and DPF ‘Jungle Gandharav’ also its allotment standing barred by a judicial pronouncement of this Court, relevant portion whereof stands extracted hereinabove, made it amenable for user by the estate right holders for the purposes embodied in Ext.PZ/A, purposes manifested wherein are pari materia vis-à-vis the purpose qua its user embodied in the plaint. In aftermath any insistence upon the plaintiffs by the learned Courts below to adduce the relevant list of “Bartan Darans” with a display of theirs names occurring therein would hold tenacity only in the event of evidence standing evinced of the plaintiffs not being the estate holders within the precincts of Jungle Gandharav hence theirs standing ousted from availing the customary rights qua its user by them. When the aforesaid evidence is amiss, reiteratedly the non adduction by the plaintiffs of the relevant list of “Bartan Darans” was not a tenable ground for the Courts below to hold of theirs not holding any “Bartan Daran” rights in the forest adjoining their habitat/homesteads especially when reflections in Ext.PZ/A also reflections in Ext.D-2 unravel of one of the estate holders, holding rights as a “Bartan Daran” in the forest land concerned, customary rights whereof being exercisable by “Bartan Darans” in consonance with the relevant record embodying the rights exercisable by them upon forest land. Imperatively when Ext.PZ/A is the relevant record embodying the rights exercisable by “Bartan Darans” upon forest land, even the plaintiffs who for want of evidence in display of theirs being not estate right holders in the relevant area are to be hence construable to be estate right holders therein concomitantly they are to be construed to be holding all customary rights qua user of forest land adjoining their estate besides qua user of the suit land on the anvil of manifestations occurring in Ext.PZ/A especially when all rights claimed therein by them find reflection therein dehors theirs not adducing the list of “Bartan Darans”. 10. The learned First Appellate Court also non suited the plaintiffs by invoking the provisions of 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter. 10. The learned First Appellate Court also non suited the plaintiffs by invoking the provisions of 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter. “Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public.- [(1) in the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted,- (a) by the Advocate General, or (b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act.] (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions. However, the aforesaid invocation besides attraction by the learned first Appellate Court is wholly inapt prominently when its invocation would arise only when the aggrieved proclaim of omissions or commissions upon the suit land by the delinquent/delinquents besides theirs tantamounting to public nuisance or his/their wrongful act affecting or likely to affect public. However, with the plaintiffs not proclaiming in their suit of the defendant No.3 by his omissions or commissions committing a public nuisance upon the suit land or his committing thereupon any wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public contrarily with his holding the suit land as Nautor on its allotment standing made in his favour by defendants No. 1 and 2 he cannot be construed to be thereupon committing any wrongful act which affects or is likely to affect the public. Also during the subsistence of the apposite allotment to defendant No.3 by defendants No. 1 and 2 which for reasons aforesaid stands concluded by this Court to be rescindable, his holding or using the suit land is not amenable to a construction of its user by him affecting or likely to affect the public. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. The judgments and decrees rendered by both the Courts below are quashed and set-aside. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.