JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they have become owners in possession of the land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Biswas situated in village Sunkhi, Pargana Bagi, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 49/98, Khasra Nos 251/27 and 28 min. as per jamabandi for the years 1987-88 by lapse of time and that the defendants appellants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, this land was mortgaged with their predecessors by Smt Parwati and others named in para 2 of the plaint for Rs.. 225 vide mutation No. 72 dated 22-2-2001 B. K, and was attested in favour of Lal Chand, mortgagee. After the original mortgage, the mortgagors raised additional mortgage money of Rs. 1,775 on this very land vide mutation No 130 dated 14-6-1952. Since the land was SHAMLAT DEH it merged in the local Panchayat tinder the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and thereafter under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, possession remained with the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the appellant-defendent stepped into the shoes of the mortgagors, This suit was contested and resisted by the appellant-defendant. Amongst other pleas, pleas of jurisdiction, suit being barred by time etc were also raised. Creation of mortgage and attestation of mutations of mortgage as well as correction thereof was also admitted in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :— 1. Whether the suit land was validly mortgaged by Smt Parwati etc with plaintiffs ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit land is possessed by the plaintiffs as mortgagees ? OPP. 3. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by afflux of time ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action ? OPP. 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of this suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 7. Relief 2. 1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by afflux of time ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action ? OPP. 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of this suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 7. Relief 2. All the above issued were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendants appellants before the lower appellate Court also met the same fate, hence this appeal 3. Shri M L Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General has raised the plea of jurisdiction in support of his appeal and has referred to section 10 of the Act of 1974, which is reproduced hereinbeiow for ready reference :— "10. Bar of jurisdiction—Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no order made by the Collector or the State Government or any officer authorised by it, as the case may be, shall called in question by any Court or before any Officer or authority." 4. A bare perusal of this provision of law bars that an order passed by Collector or State Government or any officer authorised by it, as the case may be, cannot be called in question in any court before any officer or authority. This section bars the jurisdiction in relation to the orders passed under the provisions of the said Act. In the present case Gram Panchayat in whom the land originally vested had filed a suit for redemption vide case No. 2/1 of 1974 titled, Gram Panchayat, Sairi v. Khushi Ram and others, (Ext P-5) and during the pendency of the said suit, the appellant was impleaded as a party under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the State Government was impleaded as a necessary party instead of Gram Panchayat, Sairi". This suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed when three months time was allowed to the appellant vide Ext. P-5 to deposit the mortgage money of Rs. 2,000. Admittedly, the amount has not been deposited to date. 5. This suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed when three months time was allowed to the appellant vide Ext. P-5 to deposit the mortgage money of Rs. 2,000. Admittedly, the amount has not been deposited to date. 5. In the present case, there is no question of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as inasmuch as that the respondents-plaintiffs had only sought declaration of their title to the effect that the State Government has no right having lost the same by afflux of time. 6. In the face of the aforesaid position, both the Courts below have concurrently held and correctly decided the point at issue and the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below do not call for any interference in the present appeal. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present case and the appeal deserves dismissal. No other point was raised before me. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed with costs being devoid of any merit. Costs quantified at Rs. 1,500. Appeal dismissed.