NITYA HARIMAZUMDER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 48 of 1996 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.5.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (senior division), Court No. 1, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 142 of 1993 dismissing the suit with cost.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellants herein instituted Title Suit No. 142 of 1993 against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge (senior division), Court No. 1, West Tripura for decrees for declaration, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit land given in the schedule to the plaint. The case of the appellants is that in the year 1950, while they were minors, they came to India from the erstwhile East Pakistan with their mother as refugees and settled down on the suit land by constructing huts thereon. In the year 1970, they shifted their abode half a kilometre away from the suit land but by carrying on their business on the suit land, It is asserted by the appellants that their possession of the suit land was never disturbed by anyone till 1986 when they for the first time received a notice from the state-respondents under Section 4 of the Tripura Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1983 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the ground that the suit land was a Khas land, which they contested and was eventually dropped. It is the case of the appellants that they were served with the said notice when they had started construction on the suit land and that the construction could not be completed. Ultimately, the state-respondents on 6.11.1993 demolished the structure and removed the construction materials to police station. It is also the case of the appellants that the appellants were recorded as encroacher of the suit land measuring 0.50 decimals in the khatian. The appellants also alleged that the private respondents were influential people in the locality and that they had been trying to dispossess the appellants of the suit land so mat they could grab the suit land for their personal purpose. The appellants maintained that they had acquired title to the suit land by adverse possession. Accordingly, they were instituting the suit for declaration of their title to the suit land, etc.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 to 3 are state-respondents while the respondent No. 4 and 5 are private persons, who were originally impleaded as the defendants No. 4 and 5 in the suit. The state-respondents contested the suit and filed their written statement of defence. The position taken by the state-respondents is one of total denial of the allegations of the appellants. The main contention of the state-respondents as emerged from their written statement is that the suit land is a government has land and that the appellants are merely recorded encroachers and, as such, they could never acquired title to the same by adverse possession. The private respondents also separately filed their written statement, in which, inter alia, they claimed that the appellants did not even have possession of the suit land and that the khatian recording the appellants as encroachers was not a genuine document, but was made with manipulating by over-writing in some portion of the records. They also disputed the claim of the appellants that they migrated to India along with their mother in the year 1950. The private respondents, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.