KARUNA KANTA BARMAN Vs. RAMESH BAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.9.2003, passed, in Title Suit No. 15/2001, by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 3, Guwahati, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff -petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff -petitioner may, in brief, be described, thus: The plaintiff has been in possession of a plot of land measuring about 2 Kathas, described in Schedule A to the plaint, since 1968. The land measuring about 7 Lechas, described in Schedule B to the plaint, forms a part of the land of Schedule A. The land of the plaintiff and that of the defendant are located contiguous to each other and, while the plaintiff's land is a plot of government land, the land owned and possessed by the defendant is a patta land. By making false accusations against the plaintiff of his having made attempts to dispossess the defendant from the land of Schedule B, the defendant instituted a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., and got, on 12.9.1997, the land of Schedule B attached under Section 146 Cr.P.C., this proceeding having given rise to Misc. Case No. 503/97. The plaintiff filed a written statement, in the said proceeding, clarifying that the land, claimed to have fallen under Dag No. 90 of Kachha Patta No. 6 by the defendant, is not a government land and that the land, which has been attached, is a separate piece of land. However, by order, dated 10.1.2001, passed in Misc. Case No. 503/97 aforementioned, possession of the said attached land was declared in favour of the defendant and, acting on the directions issued by the learned Executive Magistrate, the police handed over the possession of the land of Schedule B to the defendant, though the land of Schedule B has never been in the possession of the defendant. Having received the possession of the land of Schedule B, the defendant constructed a boundary wall around the land of Schedule B and blocked thereby entry to the said plot of land by the plaintiff, though the plaintiff had been using the said piece of land, in the past, for the purpose of his entry into, and exit from, his house to the main road.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff -petitioner, and Mr. P.K. Deka, learned Counsel for the defendant -opposite party.