STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SIFAT ALI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State of Assam. Respondent Sifat Ali and others brought a suit for declaration of title to 30 B. 2 K. 14 Chattaks of land of periodic patta No. 171 of village Niargram Part II Pargana Sonapur in the district of Cachar. Plaintiff's case is that the property belonged to Ashrof Ali Choudhury, Imani Meah Choudhury and other Choudhuries of village Sonabarighat. The land was sold by Ashrof Ali Choudhury and the other owners by two registered Kobalas to the Plaintiffs and their fathers for Rs. 900. The land was subsequently made a grazing reserve. In 1942 the Plaintiffs got an annual patta of the land as the land was made open for settlement. Objection was raised to the settlement of the land with the Plaintiffs and an application was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of the settlement of the disputed land with the Plaintiffs. The Deputy Commissioner rejected it. An appeal was preferred to the Assam Revenue Tribunal, which was dismissed. Subsequently after making due inquiry and the reports of the officers, the Deputy Commissioner converted the annual patta into a periodic one on the 12th April 1945. A periodic patta was subsequently issued in favour of the Plaintiffs by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar on behalf of the State; Some cases were started in the court of G. Zaman, E. A. C., 1st class and the property was kept under attachment under Sec. 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal was also preferred before the Revenue Tribunal against an order refusing cancellation of the settlement with the Plaintiffs. The appeal was dismissed. But on certain remarks being made by the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar started a miscellaneous case and asked the Respondents to show cause as to why the periodic patta should not be cancelled and turned into an annual one. The Deputy Commissioner, Cachar recommended by his order dated the 23rd Aug. 1946 to the Commissioner for cancellation of the periodic patta and the Commissioner by order dated 16th Sept. 1946 ordered cancellation of the periodic patta of the Plaintiffs and for the conversion of the same into an annual patta. The said order of the Commissioner has also been challenged being without jurisdiction.

(2.) The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Judge, Cachar has reversed the decision of the trial court.

(3.) In the second appeal two main points have been urged on behalf of the State. Firstly it is contended that the suit is barred by Art. 14 of the Limitation Act and secondly it is urged that Art. 142 will not apply to this case as has been found by the lower appellate court.