Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974, vests all common lands in the State free from encumbrances, and bars the civil court from entertaining any suit relating to land vested in the State under the Act.

D. P. Sood, J.—The main controversy arising in between the parties to the instant regular second appeal is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain any try the suit in view of section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974 ? The other substantial questions of law pertain to the question of limitation, status of the plaintiffs as owners on the ground that they earlier were tenants of the land in question.

2. Shortly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :—

3. The controversy in between the parties pertain to the land measuring 21 bighas 7 biswas situate in village Bhalechri, Pargana Malaun, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 (hereinafter shortly referred to as "the suit land") The suit land being of the nature of Shamlaat land belonged to Gram Panchayat, Bheonkhari, Pargana Malaun, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. Earlier the ancestors of the plaintiffs had been cultivating this land as Chakautadars under the Panchayat on payment of fixed Chakauta since the year 1958. Subsequently the Panchayat passed a resolution on 15-6-1965 and the suit land was further given for cultivation purpose to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Shri Sees Ram and Shri Jiwanoo, sons of Shri Mathu Ram on usual fixed Chakauta. Plaintiffs further assert that on the expiry of the fixed period of five years, a Pattanama pertaining thereto was issued by the Assistant Collector, a representative of the defendant. In crux, the case of the plaintiffs is that since the land in suit continued to bfc in possession of the tenants and proforma respondents, they became owners by virtue of H. P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (enforced on 21-2-1974) (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Reforms Act") In subsequent revenue record, defendant was recorded as owner of the suit land, whereby the plaintiffs were aggrieved This change pursuant to the action of the defendant culminated into the filing of the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of half share and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction sought a decree restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession thereof. Plaintiffs also sought the leave of the Court for instituting the suit without serving a notice upon the defendant/State as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Defendant resisted and contested the suit by raising various preliminary objections with respect to jurisdiction, limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the defendant contended that the plain tiffs and proforma respondents neither cultivated the suit land as alleged nor it vested in the Gram Panchayat aforesaid nor the said Gram Panchayat was competent to induct the plaintiffs to be tenants over the suit land for a fixed period on a fixed Chakauta. It is asserted that the suit land had vested in the State free from encumbrances under the Act.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues and on appraisal of the evidence adduced by them, the suit was decreed. It would be worthwhile to state that the defendant did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to that of the plaintiffs despite opportunity having been given to it. The impugned judgment of the trial Court was appealed against by the defendant unsuccessfully, which resulted into the filing of the instant regular second appeal,

6. I have heard Shri V. K. Verma, learned Assistant Advocate General at length. He has also drawn my attention to the entire record and the evidence adduced by the parties. He has very capably argued that the material adduced on record by the plaintiffs is not sufficient for holding that they were cultivating the suit land as tenants at the relevant time. According to him, the Panchayat was not competent to induct the pred