YIJUM POTOM Vs. TUMBI KARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Boje, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal under the provisions of Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC is directed against the order dated 04.03.2014, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Eastern Zone, West Siang District, Basar in BSR/TS- 154/13, thereby allowing Misc. Case No. 64/2014 and resultantly the plaint was rejected under the provisions of Order Issue No. VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

(3.) The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit filed under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which was registered as TS 154/2013. The case in the plaint is that the appellant had purchased a plot of land at Rupin Litak area from the husband of the respondent at Rs.300/- and resided therein from 1975 to 1979 by constructing dwelling house. It was claimed that in the year 1979, the vendor requested the appellant to vacate the purchased land because of his dispute with Bango parties and the government. The appellant accepted the request and vacated the dwelling house, inter-alia, on condition that if the vendor won the case relating to the said land he shall give 20 ft. from the present medical complex Kamba Bazar market line to the appellant in lieu of payment of consideration money of Rs.300/- by entering into an agreement. In course of time survey was conducted for TransArunachal Highway for payment of compensation and accordingly, the appellant had applied for and his name was enlisted at Sl. No.71 for the plot of land of Kamba Medical Complex on the basis of the sale deed, which entitled the appellant for Rs.29,700/-. However, the compensation was paid to the respondent No.1. It was also claimed that before awarding of compensation, the appellant had submitted an application dated 10.12.2012 before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamba (proforma respondent No.2) not to award compensation in respect of medical complex and, as such, the appellant was awarded compensation for land measuring 33 X 76 metre = 2508 metre amounting to Rs.29,700/-. It is projected that in a dispute between the respondent No.1 and her son, a local keba was conducted at Kamba. Thereafter, on 25.02.2013, a second district level keba was conducted at Aalo. The second keba was decided in favour of respondent No. 1, based on which, the compensation of Rs.29,700/- to which the appellant claims to be entitled to, was paid to the respondent No.1. It is projected that the appellant was not a party in the dispute but he was summoned for the second keba. Accordingly, the appellant had submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo that his dispute, if any with the respondent No. 1 should be separated and he had submitted that he did not desire to be a party in the property dispute between the respondent No. 1 and her son and prayed for transfer of his dispute at Kamba. However, without considering his prayer, an ex-parte decision was passed against him. In connection with the second keba, it is also claimed that the appellant was not aware of the proceeding of second keba and he came to know about it through an RTI application. The appellant approached the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District to dispose of his application for transfer of the case to Kamba, which was not considered. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for the following three reliefs in the suit: