JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This second appeal, against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp Nalagarh, dated December 18, 1992 was admitted on October 13, 1993. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, necessary facts may be noticed thus: 3. Land comprised in Khasra Number 1605 measuring 60 bighas 11 biswas, situate in village Bhatian, Tehsil Nalagarh, is in the ownership of the State of Himachal Pradesh as per entries in the revenue record. A portion of this land, comprised in Khasra Numbers 1605/1, 1605/2 and 1605/3 measuring 2 bighas 12 biswas, (suit land in short) is in possession of Plaintiff Gian Chand. Assistant Collector, 2nd (3rade, Nalagarh, proceeded against the Plaintiff under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act and directed his eviction vide orders dated March 24, 1987 (Ext. PI). Feeling aggrieved, Plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh (No. 138/ 1 of 1987) for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land and the revenue entries showing defendant-State of H.P. as owner of the suit land are illegal, null and void and the order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nalagarh (Ext. PI) are also illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and not affecting the rights of the Plaintiff. In consequence, the Plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant-State from interferring with his possession over the suit land or forcibly dispossessing him from the same. 4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is a right holder in village Bhatian, Parjana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, since his fore-fathers. The father of the plaintiff constructed a residential house on land measuring 0-7 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 1605/1 and 1605/2 in the year, 1947. His father also planted fruit orchard on the remaining land measuring 2 bighas 7 biswas bearing Khasra No. 1605/3 during that period. The plaintiff pleads that he is in actual physical, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the then owners and defendant and, therefore, he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff pleads that he is in actual physical, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the then owners and defendant and, therefore, he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that the revenue entries showing the defendant-State to be owner of the suit land are illegal and void as the suit land did not vest with the defendant-State pursuant to Section 3 of the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, (Common Lands Act and Scheme for short), as Plaintiff was having a residential house and orchard over this land since 1947. 5. Defendant-State resists the suit. Allegations are controverted. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit is disputed. Possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is not admitted. It is pleaded that possession of the land is with the State Government as it has vested in the State free from all encumberances. Revenue entries, pleads defendant-State, are correctly recorded. It is the further case of the defendant-State that the construction of the Plaintiff is over a very small area and most of the suit land is vacant. The plaintiff, it is pleaded, has rightly been directed to be evicted from the suit land. 6. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated November 22, 1991 held that the suit land has validly vested in the defendant-State but plaintiff is in possession of this land as encroacher. The eviction order are held to be valid and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the suit of the Plaintiff. Dis-satisfied, the Plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, camp at Nalagarh, who allowed the appeal holding that Plaintiff could only be dispossessed by the Collector under Section 3(5) of the Common Lands Act and the plaintiff, during these proceedings, could raise the plea of validity of the vestment of the suit in the State. Such a plea is to be determined by the Collector under the Common Lands Act and such question cannot be determined by the Civil Courts. Learned First Appellate Court accordingly held that the order of the Assistant Collector dated March 24, 1987 directing the eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land is without jurisdiction and of no consequence. 7. Such a plea is to be determined by the Collector under the Common Lands Act and such question cannot be determined by the Civil Courts. Learned First Appellate Court accordingly held that the order of the Assistant Collector dated March 24, 1987 directing the eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land is without jurisdiction and of no consequence. 7. It is in the background stated above that the present appeal by the State has been filed. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against ejectment order as passed under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act? (b) Whether the respondent is not entitled to protection provided in Section 3 of the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilisation Act? (c) Whether there has been misreading of documentary and oral evidence by the courts below? 8. I have heard Shri R.M. Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. (a) Jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is admitted position that Khasra No. 1605 was recorded in the ownership of the Panchayat and in possession of the right-holders as is apparent from the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 (Ext. DD). There is also no dispute that this land vested in Panchayat under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as in force in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under Section 5 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Common Lands Act, all rights, title and interest, including the contingent interest, of the land owner in which lands stood vested in the State Government free from all encumberances. However, Clause (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 contemplates that any such land on which inhabitant of the area has built or raised construction, shall not vest in the State. Section 3 of the Act may be reproduced for convenience: "3. However, Clause (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 contemplates that any such land on which inhabitant of the area has built or raised construction, shall not vest in the State. Section 3 of the Act may be reproduced for convenience: "3. Vesting of rights in the State Government—(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement, instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order of any court or other authority all rights, title and interests including the contingent interest, if any, of the landowner in the lands in any estate— (a) vested in a Panchayat under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) as in force in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under Section 5 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) except lands used or reserved for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds within abadi deh or garah deh; (b) described in the revenue records as shamlat tarat, pattis, pannas and thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under Section 5 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966); and (c) described in revenue records as shamlat, shamlat deh, shamlat taraf, shamlat chak and patti in the areas comprised in Himachal Pradesh, immediately before 1st November, 1966; shall stand extinguished and all such rights, title or interest shall vest in the State Government free from all encumberances. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply to lands described in clauses (b) and (c) of that subsection if, before the date of commencement of this Act— (a) partition of such lands is made by the individual co-sharers through a process of law by a competent court or authority; (b) transfer of such lands is made by the landowner by way of sale, gift or exchange, (c) such land built upon by an inhabitant by raising a residential house of cow-shed. (c) The State Government shall be liable to pay, and the landowners whose rights have been extinguished under subsection (1) of this section shall be entitled to receive the amount in lieu thereof at the following rates:— (i) for the land reserved for grazing and other common purposes under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, five times the annual land revenue including rates and cesses chargeable thereon; and (ii) for the remaining land, fifteen times the annual land revenue including rates and cesses chargeable thereon : Provided that where the land vested in the State Government under this Act is not assessed to land revenue, the same shall be construed to be assessed as on similar land in the estate and if not available in the estate then in the adjoining estate or estates, as the case may be. (4) The amount paid to a Panchayat under Section 7 shall be deemed to be the Sabha Fund and shall be utilised for such purposes as are mentioned in Section 40 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (19 of 1970). (5) The Collector may, by order in writing, at any time after the land vested in the State Government, direct the landowners to deliver possession thereof within 10 days from the service of the order to such person as may be specified in the order. (6) If the landowners refuse or fail without reasonable cause to comply with the order made under sub-section (5), the Collector may take possession of the land and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary." 10. It may be noticed that Section 10 of the Common Lands Act bars jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings calling in question any order made by the Collector or the State Government or any other officer authorised by it under the Common Lands Act. It may be noticed that Section 10 of the Common Lands Act bars jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings calling in question any order made by the Collector or the State Government or any other officer authorised by it under the Common Lands Act. Bare reading of Section 3 of the Common Lands Act, reproduced above, shows that all rights, title and interest of the landowners, in the land in any estate, which vested in the Panchayat under Section 4 of the Punjab Act, except the land used or reserve for the benefit of village community as also the land described in the revenue record as Shamlat taraf, pattis, pannas and thola and not used for benefit of village community, shall vest in the State free from all encumberances. However, sub-section (2) to Section 3, as noticed earlier, provides exception and described the land which do not vest in the State. The vestment indeed to automatic and the Collector under sub-section (5) of Section 3 is empowered to call upon the land owners to deliver the possession thereof after a notice has been duly served on them. The Collector, it may be noticed, is empowered to take forcible possession, in case land owner fails to comply with the order of the Collector under sub-section (6) of Section 3. As noticed earlier, clause (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 save the land from vestment on which an inhabitant has raised a residential house or cow-shed or other construction. Indeed, such a question has to be decided by the Collector as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules framed under Section 13 of the Common Lands Act. Rule 9 stipulates that in case of a dispute regarding the entry of the land vested in the State Government, the Collector shall be competent to decide such dispute after a summary inquiry. 11. In the present case, it is not the case of the Plaintiff that he raised such dispute before the Collector. Of course, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to raise such a dispute before the start of the eviction proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, In the circumstances, it was not open to the Assistant Collector to have proceeded against the Plaintiff under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Of course, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to raise such a dispute before the start of the eviction proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, In the circumstances, it was not open to the Assistant Collector to have proceeded against the Plaintiff under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The plain tiff/ re spondent could have only been dealt with under Section 3 of the Common Lands Act after holding an inquiry regarding the validity of the vestment of the suit land in the State Government in view of the provisions of clause (c), sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Common Lands Act. This Court in Dalip Singh v. State of H.P., 1992 (1) SLC 320, interpreting Section 10 of the Common Lands Act held that there is no express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court though there is an implied bar only in respect of orders made by the Collector or the State Government by any officer authorised by it in this behalf. Relying upon Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 SC 78, this Court further held that Section 10 gives finality to order made by the Collector or the State which includes an order deciding a dispute raised before the Collector under Rule 9 of the Rules noticed above. The Collector is bound to follow procedure provided under Rule 10 of the Rules read with Section 12 of the Common Lands Act in deciding the disputes raised before him under clause (c), subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act provides for appeal from an order passed by the Collector. In Gram Panchayat Khunyarav. State of H.P., I.L.R. 1978 HP 225, a question was raised about the Competent Authority to decide whether the land had lawfully vested in the State or not. It was held by a Full Bench of this Court that it was for the Collector to settle such dispute under Rule 9 of the Rules. In para 44, it was observed: "44. We are of the opinion that all inquiries with regard to vesting of a particular piece of land in the State Government can be conducted by the Collector under Rule 9 quoted above. The scheme which is envisaged is that vestment contemplated by the impugned Act is immediate under Section 3. In para 44, it was observed: "44. We are of the opinion that all inquiries with regard to vesting of a particular piece of land in the State Government can be conducted by the Collector under Rule 9 quoted above. The scheme which is envisaged is that vestment contemplated by the impugned Act is immediate under Section 3. Under Rule 6, Form C, which prescribes the Form of Tehsil Register of demarcation of Shamlat land, entries are required to be made in the said Register. Under sub-section (5) of Section 3 it is provided that the Collector may, by order in writing, at any time after the land has vested in the State Government, direct the landowners to deliver possession thereof within ten days from the service of the order to such person as may be specified in the order. Now, before the Collector proceeds under sub-section (5) of Section 3, there is a scope of dispute arising regarding entry of land having been vested in the State Government Therefore, it is clear that the enquiry contemplated by Rule 9 should be started before action under sub-section (5) of Section 3 is taken. The result, therefore, is that after vesting contemplated by Section 3 of the Act is presumed to have taken place, the Collector is bound to enquire into and consider the disputes relating to this vestment This enquiry is of a summary nature and is required to be conducted by the Collector in accordance with the procedure prescribed in rules made under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Section 9 of the impugned Act provides for an appeal against the order passed by the Collector in such an enquiry. This appeal lies to the State Government. It would be only after the matter is finally settled, through appeal or otherwise, that proceedings contemplated by sub-section (5) of Section 3 with regard to taking of the possession can be undertaken, becuase till then it would not be clear whether a particular piece of land has legally vested in the State Government or not." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Similarly, in para 45 of the judgment it was observed: "45. We may revert to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3, which is already referred to above. Similarly, in para 45 of the judgment it was observed: "45. We may revert to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3, which is already referred to above. So far as this subsection (2) is concerned, the Collector shall have to ascertain whether a particular case falls within any of its three clause (a), (b) and (c). It would be only thereafter that it can be ascertained whether the land which is said to be covered by the provisions of sub-section (2) legally vests in the State Government or not It need not be emphasised that if as a result of the enquiry, conducted by the Collector under Rule 9, it is found that a particular piece of land does not fall within the definition of the word land, as given in clause (f) of Section 3, as explained by us in this judgment, or that provisions of subsection (2) of Section 3 apply to such land, the Collector will have to arrive at a conclusion that that land does not legally vest in the State Government."(Emphasis supplied) 13. The ratio of Gram Panchayat Khunyaras case is that inquiry as envisaged by Rule 9 has to be started before any action under Section 5 of the Act for eviction of the encroacher is taken inasmuch as till such time, it cannot be said whether a particular piece of land has or has not validly vested in the State Government. 14. As observed in Dalip Singhs case supra, the Common Lands Act give a finality to the order passed by the Collector or the State Government and jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted to entertain and decide a suit of the nature. However, Section 10 of the Common Lands Act does not exclude those cases from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts where it is shown that provisions of a particular Act have not been complied with or that Collector of the State Government has not acted in confirmity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. 15. Thus, the Civil Court cannot go into the validity of the vestment of the suit land in the State. Such a question, as noticed earlier, can only be decided by the Collector. 15. Thus, the Civil Court cannot go into the validity of the vestment of the suit land in the State. Such a question, as noticed earlier, can only be decided by the Collector. However, the Civil Courts jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit for grant of decree for prohibitory injunction based on settled possession is not ousted by any provision of the Act. The question is accordingly decided. (b) Protection under Section 3 of the Common Lands Act. 16. As discussed in the foregoing para, in view of the ratio in Gram Panchayat Khunyaras case, the Civil Courts are not vested with the jurisdiction to decide whether or not a person in possession of the land vested in the State pursuant to Section 3(i)(a) is entitled to protection of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (2) of Section 3. The determination of such question falls within the domain of the Collector as appointed vide Notification No. 2-27/73-Rev. I dated December 31, 1974. (c) Misreading of oral and documentary evidence. This question need not be answered in view of answers to question No. (a) and (b) above. However, it may be noticed that learned First Appellate Court erred in holding that provision of sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Common Lands Act are attracted in this case. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 empowers the Collector by order in writing to direct land owner to deliver possession within ten days from the service of such order, of the land which has vested in the State Government. 17. This case falls under Section 5 of the Act providing for ejectment of the encroacher on the land vested in the State Government. 18. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with the observations that the plaintiff/respondent shall not be evicted save and except in accordance with the provisions of Common Lands Act. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. -