The High Court of Tripura, while allowing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment dated 25.02.2022 and decree dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Learned District Judge, held that the Trial Court could not have dismissed the appellant’s suit merely on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff could not produce any documentary evidence showing his perfect title over the suit land.
Brief Facts:
The present appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right title and interest and confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction over the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint before the court of the Learned Civil Judge. The case of the appellant-plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court was that the suit land was originally a government land and in the year 1985, the suit land was allotted in favor of Sashi Mandol and his wife for agriculture purposes. They sold out the said quantum of land to Chaya Rani who again sold out the aforesaid entire land to the appellant-plaintiff Jogendra Chandra Roy by executing one registered sale deed bearing No.1-603 dated 10.02.1992. The appellant-plaintiff’s application for mutation was rejected in the year 2010 on the ground that it was Government land. The appellant approached various forums for relief but was unsuccessful. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the respondent-defendants never disputed the possession of the present appellant-plaintiff or his predecessor over the suit land but the State-respondents beyond his knowledge most arbitrarily made the suit land as khas which was illegal and not binding upon the appellant-plaintiff. He argued that the state-respondents without affording any opportunity to him beyond his back made the suit land as khas land and before the LA Collector the present appellant-plaintiff approached for payment of compensation in respect of suit land. But the LA Collector only gave surface damage to him without any payment of compensation of the acquired land i.e. the suit land to the present appellant-plaintiff.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the suit land was originally allotted in the name of one Sashi Mandol and his wife Sumati Mandol and khatian was created in their name. Thereafter they transferred the suit land in the name of one Chaya Rani Saha by two separate deeds and said Chaya Rani Saha by another title deed transferred the suit land in the name of the present appellant-plaintiff which was later on acquired by the Government for construction of NH-44.
The court observed that the state respondents did not contest the suit before the Learned Trial Court below nor produced any documentary evidence. There is no evidence on record that the original allottees obtained allotment after playing fraud upon the Government. Even the registering authority of State-respondents had allowed the registration of sale deeds without any objection. So, after the elapsing of the long period where the land was under constructive possession of the present appellant-plaintiff, there was no scope on the part of the state respondents to cancel the order of the allotment. The Court said that the authority of the state respondents most arbitrarily without any basis and without affording any opportunity either to the original allottee or to the subsequent purchasers including the present appellant-plaintiff canceled the allotment order wrongly.
The decision of the Court:
The Tripura High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the appellant has been able to establish his valid right, title, and interest over the suit land.
Case Title: Sri Jogendra Chandra Roy vs State of Tripura & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit
Case No.: RSA No.25 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. N. Chowdhury
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
