[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 9 December, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010081362023
2025:GAU-AS:16912
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RFA/8/2024
SAMIRAN CHANDRA LASKAR
S/O LT. SURENDRA CHANDRA LASKAR R/O VILL. AND P.O. NIZ FULBARI
PART III P.S. KATIGORAH DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788025
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRTARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
SILCHAR
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
DEPPTT. OF IRRIGATION CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 3 ASSAM
5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
DEPTT. OF IRRIGATION CACAR CIRCLE SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR DIST.
CACHAR ASSAM
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
SILCHAR DIVISION IRRIGATION SONAI ROAD KANAKPUR SILCHAR 5
7:MALLIK LASKAR
JUNIOR ENGINEER INCHARGE OF THE SITE O/O THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER SILCHAR DIVISION IRRIGATION SILCHAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, MS. N M LONGKENG,J MEDHI,MR. N
Page No.# 2/4
NATH,MR. R. KARIM,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. I H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, IRRIGATION
:: BEFORE ::
(HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA)
Advocate(s) for the Appellant : Mr. N. Nath,
Advocate.
Advocate(s) for the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bhattacharya,
Advocate.
Mrs. D.S. Neog,
Advocate.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 19.08.2025.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.12.2025.
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment? : YES.
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced? : YES.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)
Heard Mr. N. Nath, learned counsel representing the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K.
Bhattacharya, learned counsel as well as Ms. D.S. Neog, Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department,
Assam appearing for their respective respondents.
2. This is a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC) whereby the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2021 passed by the court of the learned
Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Suit No.37 of 2009 is under challenge.
3. The case of the appellant is that he is the exclusive owner and occupier of 20 bighas of land
described in Schedule-I of the plaint. Since the year 2006, the appellant was producing/manufacturing
bricks under the name and style of "Ashima Brick Industry" situated over the said plot of land.
4. At that time, the Government of Assam was planning to set up irrigation water canals for
Phoolbari Irrigation Scheme, for the benefit of poor farmers. According to the appellant, the
Government was trying to build the canal through his land, causing damage to his land. When the
Page No.# 3/4
appellant objected to it, the respondents even assured the appellant that he would be paid adequate
compensation.
5. In this way, the construction of the canal started. The appellant sent a notice under Section 80 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to the respondents seeking a compensation of ₹27,51,200/-. Therefore, the
appellant filed the suit praying for a decree declaring his right, title and interest over the said land and
for compensation. The suit proceeded ex parte against some of the defendants. The learned Civil Judge
dismissed the said suit and the first appeal being RFA 43/2011 was preferred before this Court. This
Court partly allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court for deciding the question of
ownership/occupation of the present appellant over the said land etc. This Court also directed the trial
court to determine the quantum of damages claimed by the appellant. The appellate did not adduce
additional evidence nor did he apply for issuing a Commission. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed
under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Subsequently, the case was restored to file at the behest of the appellant. Even then, the appellant
did not take any steps as directed by this Court in its judgment passed in RFA 43/2011. Finally, after
hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant.
7. In this case, the trial court framed three issues, which are as under:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to right-title and possession?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to relief as claimed for?
3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?
8. At the time of hearing, the appellant examined himself and another witness. I have gone through
the evidence. The only point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the plaintiff is the title
holder of the land on which his brick industry stands.
9. The Issue No.1 covers the point for determination. Therefore, I shall take up the Issue No.1 first
for discussion.
ISSUE NO.1
10. The appellant exhibited the Occupational Certificate issued by Circle Officer, Katigorah as Ext.I.
Ex.II was the NO-Objection Certificate issued by Senior Environment Engineer, R.L.O. Ex.III is the
permission to set up the industry allowed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. Ext.IV is the
Registration Certificate issued by the Deputy Director, KVRC, Silchar.
11. The appellant claimed that the land on which his brick industry stands was purchased by his
father by a registered sale deed. But he did not submit the registered sale deed though it was in his
possession.
12. The registered sale deed by which the father of the appellant had purchased the land was not
produced before the trial court. So the claim of the appellant that he has the right, title and interest over
the land remained unproved. The learned trial court has correctly has decided that this issue in negative.
Accordingly, this issue is again decided in negative.
ISSUE NOS.2 & 3
13. In view of the decision arrived at Issue No.1, the learned trial court has correctly decided that
these two issues in negative. Both the issues are again decided in negative.
Page No.# 4/4
O R D E R
14. In view of the decisions arrived at in the foregoing issues, this court is of the opinion that the
learned trial court has correctly dismissed the suit of the appellant. The present appeal is found to be
devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
Send back the TCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
