JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No.144-P/XIII- 2005, whereby the learned lower Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P, in Civil Suit No.103 of 2000, dated 17.8.2005, with the prayer to set aside the same and decree the suit of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit land against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant’) alleging that he was allotted 'Shamlat land’ in the year 1976-77, comprised in Khata No.70 min. Khatauni No.241 & 245 Khasra No.218, 670 & 671/1 measuring 0-30-47 hectares, situated in Mohal Nawalkar, Mauza Naura, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. The allotment was cancelled by the SDO (C), Palampur, vide order dated 25.7.1981, without any rhyme or reason, the order was challenged in the Civil Court and the order of S.D.O (C) was quashed by the Civil Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh, maintained an appeal before the learned District Judge, Dharamshala, the same was also dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below was affirmed. On 18.9.1996, Addl. District Magistrate, Kangra, entertained an application of some of the residents of Village Naura, Tehsil Palampur, for cancellation of the allotment cancelled the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff. The said order of Addl. District Magistrate, who was earlier impleaded as defendant No.2 (and whose name was deleted) is in clear disobedience of the decree of Civil Court and without jurisdiction. An application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, was also filed against the Addl. District Magistrate, but it was dismissed by the Civil Court. 3. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendant by raising preliminary objections that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the case, suit is not maintainable, plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit and the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. 3. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendant by raising preliminary objections that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the case, suit is not maintainable, plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit and the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. On merits, it has been contended that the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff during the year 1976-77, but its possession was not delivered to him. Thereafter, the said allotment was cancelled by Addl. District Magistrate, exercising the powers of Commissioner, as there was representation of Gram Panchayat, Naura, with a prayer for the cancellation of allotment. There was no bar for the competent Revenue Officer, for cancellation of the suit land. Moreover, the plaintiff was an employee at the time of allotment of land and no possession was ever delivered to him. 4. The learned trial Court framed following issues on 4.1.2003 : “1. Whether the order dated 28.4.1997 passed by Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, is wrong and without jurisdiction, as alleged ? OPP. 15. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession, as alleged ? OPP. 16. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction ? OPD. 17. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 18. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi ? OPD. 19. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD. 20. Whether no notice under Section 80 CPC has been served on the State of H.P ? OPD. 21. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD. 22. Relief.” 5. The learned trial Court after deciding Issue Nos.1 and 2 against the plaintiff, Issue No.3 against the defendant, Issue No.4 in favour of the defendant, Issue Nos.5 to 8 against the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the appeal was maintained by the plaintiff before learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and the same was dismissed. The learned trial Court after deciding Issue Nos.1 and 2 against the plaintiff, Issue No.3 against the defendant, Issue No.4 in favour of the defendant, Issue Nos.5 to 8 against the defendant and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the appeal was maintained by the plaintiff before learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala and the same was dismissed. Hence, the present regular second appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the face of the decree passed in the earlier suit declaring the appellant-plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit land and restraining the respondent-defendant from causing any interference in possession of the appellant-plaintiff, could the Additional Deputy Commissioner have passed an order for the cancellation of allotment of the suit land in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, under the scheme formulated in accordance with the provisions of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act ?” 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has argued that the learned Courts below has not taken into consideration the fact that the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in earlier suit has attained finality with respect to the same land and the Additional District Magistrate, was having no power to cancel the allotment after the decree has attained finality. 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the decree in the earlier suit was only to the extent that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, was having no jurisdiction to pass the cancellation order cancelling the Nautor land, but thereafter the order of cancellation was passed by the competent authority, as per law. There is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Courts below. He has argued that the appeal deserves dismissal. 8. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has argued that the land is still lying vacant, as the plaintiff was entitled for Nautor land, he should be given Nautor land, as per Rules by the defendant and so the appeal may be allowed. 9. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 10. At the very outset, it is pertinent to discuss the evidence, which has been led by the plaintiff. 9. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 10. At the very outset, it is pertinent to discuss the evidence, which has been led by the plaintiff. The plaintiff Rattan Chand, appeared as PW-1, has stated that the suit land is about 8 ½ Kanals, which was allotted to him by way of 'Patta’ in the year 1978, against payment of Rs. 184/- and thereafter Sub Divisional Magistrate, cancelled the same. The plaintiff has challenged the said order before learned Court below and the suit was decreed in his favour. The appeal was preferred by the defendant before the learned lower Appellate Court, Dharamshala, and the same was also decided in favour of the plaintiff. He has further deposed that the Panchayat people approached the Addl. District Magistrate and decided the matter against the plaintiff without any jurisdiction. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the suit land was allotted to him, being a land less person and that he joined services in the year 1990, on daily wages. He has denied that he was in service during the year 1976-77. He has denied that at the time of allotment, his annual income was Rs. 3000/- or that possession was not delivered to him by the Revenue Department stated that the possession was delivered and then Revenue Department again took possession of the suit land. He has denied that all the villagers use the suit land and the land is lying vacant and is possessed by the Government. He has admitted that after the allotment of suit land, the villagers complained against the witness and the allotment was cancelled. He has admitted that on the complaint of Panchayat before the Addl. District Magistrate, the allotment was cancelled, even after the decision of Civil Court. He has admitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the witness and Panchayat during the proceedings before Addl. District Magistrate. He has also admitted that decisions made by learned Court below and learned District Judge, pertained to the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate. He has also unaware if Addl. District Magistrate (Commissioner) was competent to cancel the 'Pata’. No appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the order of cancellation of allotment made by the Addl. District Magistrate. He has also stated that Revenue Department had not handed over the possession to him. He has also unaware if Addl. District Magistrate (Commissioner) was competent to cancel the 'Pata’. No appeal was preferred by the plaintiff against the order of cancellation of allotment made by the Addl. District Magistrate. He has also stated that Revenue Department had not handed over the possession to him. DW-1 Ranu Ram, Patwari Halqua Naura, has stated that the suit land belongs to the State Government and is in possession of Forest Department through 'Tabe’-Bartandaran’. The said land was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1976-77, but the possession was not handed over to the plaintiff, because it was in possession of Forest Department through 'Bartandarans’. There is one water pond in the suit land, the water of which is used for irrigation by the 'Bartandarans’. In his cross-examination, he has denied that change in entry of the suit land was made in the year 2000 and such change was effected in the year 1995-96. DW-2 Baldev Singh, Clerk, has produced copy of the order dated 28th April, 1997, Ex.P-7, whereby the allotment of the suit land was cancelled on an application moved by the Gram Panchayat, Naura. He has also proved on record that the plaintiff was working as Mate in the Irrigation and Public Health Department. DW-3 Kashmir Singh, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Naura, has stated that the suit land is owned by State of Himachal Pradesh and is possessed by Forest Department through 'Bartandarans’. The suit land falls in village Naura and there is a water pond, the water is being used by the Villagers, that is, the 'Bartandarans’. He has also stated that earlier the suit land had been allotted to the plaintiff, but on the objections and keeping in view the utility of the 'Bartandarans’, such allotment was cancelled, on the application of Gram Panchayat, Naura, moved before Deputy Commissioner and the same was duly signed by the Villagers. The plaintiff has no concern with the suit land nor there is any entry in favour of the plaintiff in Revenue record. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that suit land was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1977, but he does not know, if earlier Sub Divisional Magistrate, had cancelled the same or that such order was challenged by the plaintiff and civil suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that suit land was allotted to the plaintiff in the year 1977, but he does not know, if earlier Sub Divisional Magistrate, had cancelled the same or that such order was challenged by the plaintiff and civil suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff. DW-4 Smt. Kanta Mehta, has deposed that the earlier to the allotment of suit land is being used by the 'Bartandarans’, as there is also one water tank, which is hundred years old. The plaintiff has no concern whatsoever with the suit land. In her cross-examination, she has denied that the plaintiff has got the suit land by the order of the Court. She has denied that after decision of the Court, they have built a water tank on the suit land. She has also denied that being Pradhan, she connived with Villagers and got quashed the court orders from the Addl. District Magistrate. She has denied that Addl. District Magistrate, had no powers to quash such order. She has denied that plaintiff is owner-in-possession of the suit land. 11. From the perusal of record, it is revealed that the judgment as passed by the Civil Courts in the earlier litigation shows that the Civil Courts judgment and decree, which has attained finality has specifically held that Sub Divisional Magistrate, was having no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that in cases under the H.P. Village Common (Vesting and Utilization) Scheme, 1975 only the “Commissioner” is empowered to cancel the allotment made in favour of a particular person. Vide notification No.2-A (4)-3/78, dated January 6, 1979, issued by the State Government, all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Himachal Pradesh, have been vested with the powers of the “Commissioner” within the meaning of clause 13 (4) of the Scheme of 1975 and vide subsequent notification No.2-A (3)- 11/77 dated March 26, 1983, in addition to the Deputy Commissioners, Addl. District Magistrates of Kangra and Mandi, have also been vested with the powers of the “Commissioner” within the meaning of clause 13 (4) of the Scheme of 1975. So, the order of cancellation made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palampur, against the plaintiff was quashed. It was the sole ground on which the cancellation order was set aside by the Civil Courts. However, the Addl. So, the order of cancellation made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palampur, against the plaintiff was quashed. It was the sole ground on which the cancellation order was set aside by the Civil Courts. However, the Addl. District Magistrate, Kangra, thereafter exercising the powers of “Commissioner” has cancelled the allotment of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, vide order Ex.D-7, its copy Ex.P-3, also on record. It is specifically admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination that he was given full opportunity to contest the cancellation case by the Addl. District Magistrate. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that the land is in the nature of water body and is still lying vacant. However, the defendant’s case is that the land is being used by 'Bartandarans’, is in occupation of the Forest Department, which also shows that the land being vacant throughout and it was never possessed by the plaintiff. So, substantial question of law is decided accordingly holding that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is not in derogation to the decree for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction in respect of the suit land. The learned Courts below has not misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974. The order of competent authority is just, reasoned and properly appreciated by the learned Courts below. 12. From the above, it is clear that the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are just, reasoned and after appreciating the evidence, which has come on record to its true perspective. Hence, needs no interference. 13. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff being without any merit deserves dismissal, hence the same is dismissed. Needless to say that if the plaintiff has a right in view of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P, Ex.P-3 dated 28.4.1997, he shall be at liberty to approach the authorities, as per law. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own cost (s). Pending application (s), if any shall also stands disposed of.