SURJIT SINGH, J.

(1.) State has appealed against the judgment and decree dated 14th March, 1996 of learned District Judge, whereby partly accepting the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1990 of learned trial Court, though the decree declaring the plaintiff-respondent as owner of suit land, which measures 4 Marlas and forms part of Khasra No.513, shown by Khasra No.513 min, Khata No.122 min Khatauni No.194 min, as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84, has been reversed, yet decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant-appellant, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh, from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff- respondent, as passed by the trial Court, has been upheld, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? with the finding that the defendant-appellant is not the owner of the said land.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the above-described land, hereinafter referred to as suit land, as he had been in possession of the same for more than 30 years and had, therefore, acquired title by prescription.

(3.) Suit was contested by the defendant-appellant. It was stated that the State was the owner of the land and that the plaintiff-respondent had procured a false entry in the revenue papers, indicating that the suit land is under Abadi.

(4.) Various issues were framed by the trial Court, on the pleading of the parties and at the end of the trial, suit was decreed, with the finding that the plaintiff- respondent had become owner by adverse possession. In addition to the decree for declaration, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also passed, as prayed by the plaintiff-respondent.

(5.) Defendant-appellant went in appeal. Learned District Judge has partly accepted the appeal, as aforesaid. Learned District Judge has held that the suit land was earlier village common land (shamlat) and that since this land was under a cow-shed of the plaintiff-respondent, it was exempt from vestment in the State, under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 and, hence, defendant-appellant had no right to evict the plaintiff-respondent or to interfere in his possession.

(6.) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the bar created by section 10 of the HP Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 and under section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961? 2. Whether the land in dispute being shamlat has rightly been vested firstly in Panchayat and then in the State of HP free from all encumbrances and all rights title or interest existing on the suit land stood extinguished by operation of law. 3. Whether the respondent is a encroacher and proceedings under Section 163 of HP Land Revenue Act are initiated against the respondent and in u/s 171 of the HP Land Revenue Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. Even otherwise, the mis-reading of documentary and oral evidence itself amounts to substantial question of law."

(7.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(8.) No order of any authorities, constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 or the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regularization) Act, 1961, has been assailed in the present case and, hence, question of application of Section 10 of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 or Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regularization) Act, 1961 does not arise. Hence, substantial question of law No.1 is answered against the defendant-appellant.

(9.) Section 3(2)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 saves common land from vestment in the Panchayat, if it is covered under Abadi or a cow-shed. In the present case, admittedly there has been a cow-shed since long. Earlier there was an old structure and when it collapsed a new structure was raised in its place. Thus, the site was exempt from vestment in the State, under clause (c) sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974. Substantial question of law No.2 stands answered accordingly.

(10.) In view of the answer to substantial question of law No.2, substantial question of law No.3 is also answered against the defendant-appellant.

(11.) As regards substantial question of law No.4, finding of the learned District Judge is based on the entries in the revenue papers. Hence, this substantial question of law is also answered against the defendant-appellant.

(12.) In view of the above findings, appeal is dismissed.

(13.) Cross-objections (C.O. No.324 of 1996) have also been filed by the plaintiff-respondent, challenging the decree of the District Judge, whereby decree, declaring the plaintiff-respondent as owner of the s

uit land, passed by the trial Court, has been reversed. (14.) Suit land was shamlat, prior to the entries appearing in the name of Panchayat and then in the name of State of Himachal Pradesh. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that he has become owner by adverse possession. He cannot be granted this type of declaration, unless other members of the village proprietary body are party to the suit. Hence, the Cross Objections, which were admitted on the same substantial questions of law as the appeal, are dismissed. Both the appeal and the Cross Objections stand disposed of.