IZARUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2011 passed by learned Munsiff No.2, Goalpara, in Title Suit No.85/2010 thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of possessory right and for recovery of possession thereof.

(2.) The present petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.85/2010 in the court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Goalpara against four defendants, all of whom are either State of Assam or its officers. It is stated in the body of the plaint that suit land measuring 5 bighas was originally owned and possessed by grandfather of the plaintiff, Late Osim Uddin Ahmed, who had gifted the same to the plaintiff on 16.12.1979 along with valuable trees standing on it. He has been possessing the same since last 35 years peacefully and so acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. But on 01.03.2010 the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on being instructed by defendant No.3 entered into the suit land and evicted the plaintiff as a result of which his right, title and possession over the suit land became clouded. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a declaration that he has right to possess the suit land on the strength of his long possession over it by evicting the defendants, their men, agents and employees and alternatively, a declaration be made of his right, title and interest with respect to the suit land on the basis of long possession and to recover possession thereof. The plaint does not disclose any recital as to whether any notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the defendants before instituting the suit although all the defendants are officers of the Government of Assam.

(3.) On being summoned the defendants appeared and submitted a written statement denying the case of the plaintiff and stating that it is a forest reserve land in support of which a mention has been made in the revenue records. The forest authority raised a teak nursery over the suit land in the 1970's during the tenure of Late Gopesh Chandra Das, the then Beat Officer, and those teak seedlings had grown into full fledged teak plantation in the meantime worth crores of rupees. The defendants denied possession of the grandfather of the plaintiff or possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any point of time and prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with compensatory cost. The defendants thereafter did not appear and accordingly the suit proceeded exparte against the defendants.