Sri Krishna [email protected] Krishna Kumar ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 796 Tri

                          Page 1 of 8


                 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                      AGARTALA
                  RFA NO.05 OF 2020

Sri Krishna [email protected] Krishna Kumar Datta,
S/o- Lt. Chinta Haran Datta,
Resident of Rankang, Amarpur,
P.S.-Birganj, District-Gomati Tripura.

                                        ......... Appellant(s)

                Vs.

1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Aviation,
Rajib Gandhi Bhavan,
Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-110003.


2. The Airport Authority of India,
Rajib Gandhi Bhavan,
Safdarjung Airpur, New Delhi-110003.

3. The Chairman,
Airport Authority of India,
Rajib Gandhi Bhavan,
Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-110003.

4. The Regional Executive Director,
Airport Authority of India,
National Airport Division, N.E. Region,
Lokapriya Gopinath Bardoloy,
International Airport, Gauhati-781015.

5. The Airport Director,
Airport Authority of India, Aerodrome,
Singerbil, Agartala, West Tripura-799009.

6. The Controller of Aerodrome Airport,
Authority of India(NAD),
Civil Aerodrome, Singerbil,
Agartala, West Tripura-799009.
                                   Page 2 of 8


    7. The State of Tripura,
    Represented by the Secretary,
    The Department of Revenue,
    New Secretarial Building,
    New Capital Complex,
    Agartala, West Tripura-799006.

    8. The District Magistrate & Collector,
    (Land Acquisition Section)
    Government of Tripura,
    Agartala, West Tripura 799001.

                                                ...... Respondent(s)

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Das, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. S.Deb Gupta, Advocate.

Mr. K.C. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

Mr. B. Majumder, Asst. S.G.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 25.08.2022

Whether fit for reporting : NO.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) (T. AMARNATH GOUD, J)

This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code

of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Order XLI of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree

dated 11.02.2019 passed in T.S. 162 of 2018 by the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala, Court

No.1.

2. The facts in brief in this instant appeal is that the

appellant herein is the owner of land measuring 0.28 acres

within District-West Tripura, P.S.- Airport, Tehsil-

Lankamura, Mouja-Singerbil, Sub-Division-Mohanpur,

Revenue Circle-Mohanpur, situated at Singerbil under Touji

No.1003, Khatian No.1515 & R.S. Khatian No.525, Old C.S.

Plot No.2354 present C.S. Plot No.4048. The said property

has been inherited by the appellant. The said land is also a

vacant plain land classified as a 'tilla' now under the

possession of respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. The appellant on 20.12.2013 came to know that his

land has been encroached on by the respondents Nos.1 to 6.

Accordingly, he made enquires and collected copies

regarding the status of the land through the RTI Act. The

appellant also found that another 2(two) gandas of his land

adjacent to the suit land has been acquired by respondent

Nos.1 to 6 through respondent Nos.7 to 8. The appellant

was absent from his land for a long period because his wife

was serving under the Government of Tripura in Amarpur.

4. On collecting the information, the appellant found

that respondents Nos.1 to 6 made an endeavour to have the

mutation in their favour but the collector rejected such

prayer. But, the possession has been directed to be shown in

the mutation record. The appellant thereafter served a

statutory demand notice to vacate the land or to acquire the

land altogether with compensation for use of the land. The

said demand notice was not replied to. The appellant

thereafter approached the Civil Court for relief as claimed in

the statutory demand notice.

5. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed a written

statement denying the claim of the appellant. In the written

statement it has been stated that the suit is barred by

limitation and also claimed adverse possession.

6. The respondent Nos.7 to 8 also filed a written

statement. In their written statement they partly accepted

the contention of the appellant regarding the records.

7. The learned Court below after taking evidence

from the parties dismissed the suit.

8. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfied with the

judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019, the appellants

preferred the instant appeal and prayed for the following

reliefs:-

"I. Admit the petition;

II. Call for the records;

III. Issue notice;

IV. After hearing both the parties be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned judgment

and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in T.S.162 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1;"

9. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant as well as Mrs. S. Deb(Gupta), learned

counsel appearing for respondents-Airport Authority of India,

Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the

State-respondents No.7 & 8 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned

Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondent-Union of India.

10. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submitted that the learned Court below while

deciding the issue Nos.1 & 2 held that the suit is barred by

limitation. The defendants have been able to prove their

defence by way of adverse possession which is absolutely

perverse. The learned Court below while relying on the

mutation case record and its orders miserably failed to

understand the amplitude of adverse possession. The

learned Court below failed to appreciate Article 65 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, and, therefore, adverse inference has

been drawn which is required to be re-appreciated. The

learned Court below failed to appreciate Section 27 of the

Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Court below failed to

appreciate that a State within the meaning of Article 12 of

the Constitution of India is the absolute owner of the

territory and has no plea of defence on adverse possession.

To substantiate his argument, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant has pressed into service

Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569

titled as Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and

ors., dated 08.01.2020.

11. Mr. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing

for the respondents-Airport Airport Authority of India

submitted that the present suit is barred by the laws of

limitation, waiver, and estoppels. The appellant's right, title,

and interest, if any over the suit land has been extinguished

by the efflux of time as respondents are in possession of suit

land for more than 60 years denying the right, title, and

interest of the recorded owner, the predecessor of the

plaintiff. The instant plaint is defective and in the plaint,

there is no description of the suit land. On this ground alone

the plaint is liable to be rejected in the 'limine'. There is no

schedule of the suit land and for this reason, the instant suit

is not maintainable. The respondent-Airport Authority of

India has acquired the title over the land recorded under

present plot No.4048 by dint of uninterrupted possession

which has been hostile to the right, title interest of the

recorder owner.

12. Mr. KC. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for

respondents No.7 & 8 submitted that the suit is barred by law

of limitation and the suit is not properly valued and hence liable

to be dismissed.

13. Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asst. S.G. also appears for

respondent-Union of India.

14. After hearing both the parties and perusing the

evidence on record, we are of the opinion that it is not right on

the part of the respondents herein to acquire the property of a

citizen depriving him of his legitimate right on technical

reasons. The ultimate justice herein in our considered opinion

would be to award fair compensation to the appellant herein.

Depriving the appellant herein, on the technical ground, cannot

override Article 300A of the Constitution of India, wherein, the

right to property of the citizen is protected under the

Constitution.

15. Hence, with the above observation and direction, the

instant first appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated

11.02.2019 passed in T.S. 162 OF 2018 is set aside to the

extent of holding that the claim of the appellant is barred by

limitation. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for

deciding the matter on merits without going into the issue of

limitation.

16. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also

stands closed.

Send down the LCRs.

                   JUDGE                         JUDGE




      suhanjit