JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana J.—This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-10-1987 of the learned District Judge, Nahan camp at Nalagarh whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 21-8-1986 of the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Arki camp at Nalagarh was affirmed. 2. The subject-matter of dispute between the parties is the land measuring 5 Biswas out of the land measuring 35 Bighas 3 Biswas comprising of Khasra No. 514 of village Sandholi specifically detailed in the plaint and the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute9. 3. The respondent before this Court and who was the plaintiff in the court below, filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute in any manner and further restraining the defendants from recovering a sum of Rs. 100 as penalty in pursuance of order dated 23-8-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as were enumerated in the plaint are these. The plaintiff is a proprietor of village Sandholi and was having a residential house in the said village Due to devastating floods in Sarsa Naddi during July 1973, the residential houses of the inhabitants of village including that of plaintiff were washed away. After such natural calamity the laud of the village became damp and full of moisture. It became unhabitable for residential purpose Consequently, the proprietary body of the village was forced to occupy different sites in the shamlat land measuring 35.3 Bighas comprising of IChasra No 5U The plaintiff came into possession of the land in dispute out of said land by way of arrangement amongst the proprietors and residents of the village for the purpose of allotment of residential site. Residential house came to be constructed by the plaintiff over the land in dispute. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade while treating the plaintiff as an encroacher over the land in dispute initiated action for his dispossession from the land in dispute on the assumption that the entire land comprising of Khasra No. 514, which was shamlat, had vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh by virtue of HL P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974. The case of the plaintiff is that since the land comprising of Khasra No 514 was reserved by the proprietary body as a residential site in the village, the same did not vest in the State under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 and, as such, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh had no authority to initiate proceedings for dispossession of the plaintiff from the land in dispute The order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade directing demolition of the super structure raised by the plaintiff on the land in dispute and imposing of penalty of Rs, 100 is bad, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 5. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants, It was averred that the land comprising Khasra No. 514 being shamlat had rightly vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the provisions of Himachal Pranesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974. It was further averred that the plaintiff had encroached upon the land in dispute by constructing a house thereon on 6-6-1984 despite protest having been raised by the revenue officials. The order of ejectment and penalty passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was legal and valid. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed by the learned Sub-Judge. The learned Sub-Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has been coming in possession of the land in dispute since 1973 and has raised residential house therein in the month of September 1973. The land in dispute could not have vested m the State of Himachal Pradesh under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 The plaintiff was accordingly granted an injunction thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the possession of the plaintiff over the laud in dispute and from recovering penalty of Rs. 100 in terms of orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh. 7. The appeal carried before the first Appellate Court was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 8-10-1987. The findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff is coming in possession of the land in dispute since 1973 and that the land in dispute did not vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 were affirmed. 8. The findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff is coming in possession of the land in dispute since 1973 and that the land in dispute did not vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 were affirmed. 8. The defendants have assailed the findings of the two courts below by way of the present regular second appeal. It has been contended that question whether the land has vested in the State under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 is not within the competency of Civil Court. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 10 This Court in Gram Panchayat Khunyara v. State of Himachal Pradesh, ILR 1978 HP 225 and in Dalip Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1992 (1) SLC 320, has held that the question whether a particular land has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the provisions of the Act of 1974 or not cannot be gone into by the civil court in view of the jurisdictional bar created under section 10 of the said Act. The appropriate forum for deciding this dispute is the Collector of the District. 11. The scheme of the Act of 1974 envisages that an inquiry contemplated by Rule 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Rules, 1975 should be started before action under sub-section (£) of section 3 of the Act of 1974 is taken. It is only after the matter is finally settled through appeal or otherwise that the proceedings contemplated by sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Act of 19/4 with regard to taking of possession could be undertaken because till then it would not be clear if a particular piece of land has or has not legally vested in the State Government. It is imperative on the Collector to ascertain whether a particular case falls within any of three exceptions enumerated in subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1974 and it would only thereafter that it could be ascertained whether the land which is said to be covered by the exception legally vests in the State or not. 12. It is imperative on the Collector to ascertain whether a particular case falls within any of three exceptions enumerated in subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1974 and it would only thereafter that it could be ascertained whether the land which is said to be covered by the exception legally vests in the State or not. 12. In the present case, admittedly, no inquiry as envisaged by Rule 9 of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Rules, 1975 was undertaken by the Collector. Therefore, the plaintiff could not have been proceeded against under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act for his ejectment from the land in dispute. 13. The two courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute. This fact is also not disputed by the defendants in view of the fact that proceedings under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act were initiated against the plaintiff. It is settled law that where a person is in settled possession of the land in dispute, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain in possession, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the land in dispute except in due course of law. 14. In view of the fact that plaintiff has been shown to be in settled possession of the land in dispute, he cannot be ejected therefrom save and except in due course of law. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession till he is ejected therefrom in due course of law. 15. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgments and decrees of the two courts below are set aside and a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the latter from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute in any manner whatsoever otherwise than in due course of law. 16. Be it stated, that the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff will not preclude the State—defendant from initiating proceedings as contemplated under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Act of 1974. 16. Be it stated, that the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff will not preclude the State—defendant from initiating proceedings as contemplated under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Act of 1974. As and when such proceedings are initiated by serving a statutory notice of 10 days upon the plaintiff, it shall be open for him to raise all such disputes as were raised by him in the civil suit or which are otherwise available to him under the law before the Collector by pointing out that the land is of such nature which has not lawfully vested in the State under the provisions of the Act of 1974 or that the same is exempted from such vestment and falls in either of the three categories mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1974. Such disputes, as and when raised, will be decided by the Collector in accordance with law. 17. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.