JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J) :- The plaintiffs- appellants filed a suit on the pleadings that the land measuring 1183 Kanal and 18 Marlas shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 vide document Ex.P-5 and situated in village Ghmarath, Tappa Dhatwal, hereinafter referred to as "the suit land", was red as Shamlat Tika 2nd was declared as Shamlat Deh under Section 2(g) and vested in the Gram Panchayat free from all encumbrances under Section (1)(a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961, herein- referred to as "the Punjab Act". On the coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1971, herein-r referred to as "the Himachal Act", it vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The latter then tried to allot the said land to the defendants - respondents No.2 to 7 under me rules framed under the Himachal Act. But, the plaintiffs - appellants filed the suit in the year 1981 alleging that the suit land has been in their individual cultivating possession in accordance to the shares the Shamlat and they have been paying the land revenue thereof. It was also pleaded that the suit lard had been partitioned by the plaintiffs-appellants before 26.1.1950 as provided under the Punjab Act. Therefore, it was further pleaded that the suit land had not vested in the State either under the Punjab Act or under the Himachal Act and thus, the State has no right to allot it to the defendants/respondents No.2 to 7. By way of consequential relief, they prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/ respondents from interfering in their possession over the suit land in any manner. 2. The defendants-respondents in the written statement pleaded that the nit land was Shamlat Tika and thus vested in the State under the Punjab and [Himachal Acts, but denied that it was in the individual cultivating possession f the plaintiff-appellants in accordance with their share in the Shamlat. It was also denied that any land revenue was being paid to the State or the suit land was partitioned prior to 1950. It was the case of the defendants -respondents in the written statement that the suit land was validly vested in the State of Punjab and then in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the latter had every right to allot the same to the defendants -respondents No.2 to 7. It was the case of the defendants -respondents in the written statement that the suit land was validly vested in the State of Punjab and then in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the latter had every right to allot the same to the defendants -respondents No.2 to 7. Preliminary objections, to the effect that the suit is not valued for the purpose, of Court fee and jurisdiction, it is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties and non -issuance of the valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were, taken. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? O.P.P. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction "as prayed for? Q.P.P. (3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? O.P.D. (4) Whether there is non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged ? If so, its effect. O.P.D. (5) Whether the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. served on the defendant is not valid and legal ? O.P.D. (6) Relief. 4. Issues No. (l). (3) (4) and (5,) were decided in favour of the plaintiffs •appellants thereby rejecting the preliminary objections taken in the written statement. However, the main issue No.(2) was decided against them resulting in dismissal of their suit by the Sub-Judge (II), Hamirpur, H.P. vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.1985. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs appellants having met with the same facet vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.1990 of the Court of Shri Janeshwar Goyal, District Judge, Hamirpur, has given rise to the present second appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counse1 Shri M.C. Mandhotra, Advocate,for the appellants and Shri. R. M. Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent No. l/ State of H.P. and I have also examined the record. 6. Ex.P-5 is the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46. The land in dispute stands described as Shamlat Tika in the same. Therefore, it has been validly held by the Courts below that it squarely falls within the definition of Shamlat Deh under Section 2(g) (ii) of the Punjab Act. Consequently, legal onus rested on the plaintiffs-appellants to prove that the suit land falls within any of the Exceptions provided under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Act. Therefore, it has been validly held by the Courts below that it squarely falls within the definition of Shamlat Deh under Section 2(g) (ii) of the Punjab Act. Consequently, legal onus rested on the plaintiffs-appellants to prove that the suit land falls within any of the Exceptions provided under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Act. The plaintiffs-appellants have mainly relied on the revenue entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46, Ex.P-5 to the effect that the land is described as Barani and to be in their cultivating possession in Khatauni Nos. 101 to 148. In the remarks column the entry in "Dakhal Bachh" which means that the proprietors are paying the land revenue. However, there is no evidence to show if any land was in their share in the Shamlat land. Unless that is shown by plausible and cogent evidence, the land cannot come within any of the Exceptions more particularly, Exception (viii) of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Act. In this manner, the learned lower appellate Court has rightly relied on the ratio of the judgment of this Court given in the case of Munshi Ram v. Gram Sabha, Saloh & Am., (1981 Sim.L.C. 28). 7. There is also no evidence to show that the suit land had been partitioned by the plaintiffs - appellants at all much less it had been partitioned before - 26.1.1950. Therefore, the plaintiffs-appellants have totally failed to bring their case within any of the Exceptions provided under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Act. Therefore, under the law, the suit land has, in fact, vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Act, being Shamlat Deh and thereafter in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Himachal Act. 8. Shri M. C. Mandhotra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants has argued that as per the entries in the Wazib-ul-urj vide Ex.P-6 which is recognized by custom of the area where the suit land is situated, Shamlat land shall remain in possession of the co-shares till it is vested under the Punjab Act or the Himachal Act. 8. Shri M. C. Mandhotra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants has argued that as per the entries in the Wazib-ul-urj vide Ex.P-6 which is recognized by custom of the area where the suit land is situated, Shamlat land shall remain in possession of the co-shares till it is vested under the Punjab Act or the Himachal Act. This argument is devoid of any force in as much as Section 4(1) of the Punjab Act has a non obstinate clause according to which all lands, as also the suit land, automatically vested in the Gram Panchayat on the coming into force of the Punjab Act, notwithstanding any law, agreement, instrument, custom, usage, decree or order of the Court to the contrary. Therefore, the entries in the Wazib-ul- urj being in the nature of custom or usage are of no avail in view of the absolute bar under the law. 9. No other point has arisen or urged. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.