DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SOUTH SIKKIM Vs. RAJ BALAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Raj Balam Prasad (plaintiff) filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2021 against the revisionist nos. 1 to 3 (defendants). It was the respondent's case that plot no.42 with an area of 0.0200 hectares (suit land) was provided to his father by late Zigmee Wangyal Lassopa in the year 1985 and after the demise of his father the suit land came to his possession with the consent of Jolly Wangyal Lassopa, son of late Zigmee Wangyal Lassopa. The respondent constructed two storied RCC structured in the suit land with the consent of Jolly Wangyal Lassopa who is the title holder of the suit land. The two storied RCC structure is in the respondent's possession and occupation but there is no change in ownership and title of the suit land as it is a Bhutia/Lepcha land. When the respondent constructed the two storied RCC structure no one including the Government objected to it and the Power Department in fact provided electricity supply. During 2008 the Town Planner blamed the respondent that he had constructed the two storied RCC structure on the suit land by encroaching State Government drain from west side of the suit land. The respondent requested the Town Planner to employ an Amin to verify the status of the suit land but it was not considered. During 2016 the Town Planner again raised the same allegation. The Town Planner also objected on the ground that the RCC structure was built without any approved blue print plan. The respondent made applications for regularization of the encroached portion, if any, but to no avail. On 10/9/2021 the revisionist no.2 (defendant no.2) i.e. the Principal Chief Town Planner issued a demolition notice to demolish the structure within 15 days of the issuance of the demolition notice. In such circumstances, the respondent approached the Court of the learned Civil Judge seeking the following substantial reliefs:

(2.) During the trial the revisionists filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d), Sec. 9 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for rejection of the plaint. The petition was filed on the following grounds:-

(3.) The petition under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC was heard by the learned Civil Judge and rejected. During the hearing, as reflected in the impugned order, no plea of limitation was raised by the revisionists and therefore, not considered.