Gauhati High Court
Prakash Chandra Debnath vs Bhadrabati Roy And Ors. on 30 October, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2007)2GLR162, 2007(1)GLT425
JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J.
1. This Second Appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 7.4.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 51/1997. By that judgment the findings of the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 05/1992 leading to dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff-appellant herein, with cost to the defendant-respondents herein, was affirmed. This is the Second Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and the first appellate court.
2. The background fact in brief originates from the claim of the plaintiff-appellant that by virtue of his long and adverse possession denying title of the defendant-respondents and for that matter anybody else he acquired title over the suit land measuring 9 gandas and 18 dhoors in Mouja Barjala appertaining to Khatian No. 920 of C.S. Plot No. 4541. It is the definite case of the appellant that after his migration from East Pakistan in 1950, he has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit land since 1952. The lands were full of jungles at the time when he possessed the same. Gradually he re-claimed the lands to make it valuable. Though the original respondent was living at a short distance from the suit land, no claim over the same was made or possession of the respondent was resisted but, when the lands became valuable, the respondent and his men made several unsuccessful attempts to dispossess the appellant from the suit land. The suit land, thereafter, was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'L.A. Collector') by a notification dated 15.3.1979 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The defendant-respondents herein, filed T.S. No. 91/1991 in the same court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala claiming the compensation awarded by the L.A. Collector for the suit land. During pendency of the said suit of the respondents, the present suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction was filed against the defendant-respondents herein, though admittedly the land was acquired long back in the year 1979 for the purpose of construction of a workshop for the Tripura Road Transport Corporation (for short TRTC').
3. The original respondent contested the suit, contending, inter alia, that the suit land was owned by him by virtue of purchase from the land owner and that in the year 1979 the same was acquired by the L.A. Collector for construction of a workshop. The respondents accordingly filed Title Suit No. 91/1991 against the State Government for declaration that he was entitled to get the compensation awarded for the suit land. It has been contended that as the land was already acquired for the purpose of construction of a workshop for TRTC, the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, perpetual injunction by the plaintiff-appellant was misconceived. The suit was also not maintainable as neither the L.A. Collector nor the State Government was made a party.
4. The learned trial court, after deciding that the suit was not maintainable without impleading the L.A. Collector, passed an order showing the L.A. Collector as defendant No. 6. But the plaintiff-appellant failed to take any step to notify the said defendant and as a result the suit had to be dismissed on 1.4.1997 for default against the L.A. Collector. After taking a view that the L.A. Collector was a necessary party as per provision contained in Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and placing reliance on Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. , the trial court held that the State Government was also a necessary party as the suit land after acquisition vested with the TRTC which was fully owned by the State Government. The admitted position being that the suit land was acquired and vested with either the TRTC or the State Government in the year 1979, the learned trial court came to hold that the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction against the respondents was not maintainable. The suit was, thus, dismissed with cost to the defendants.
5. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 51/1997, which came to be decided by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by judgment dated 7.4.1998. While disposing of the said appeal, the learned appellate court delved into the question whether after acquisition of the land in 1979 for TRTC and when a suit for payment of compensation by the defendant-respondents was pending, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was at all maintainable. The learned appellate court found no reason to take a different view from that of the learned trial court and, thus, dismissed the appeal.
6. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. None was present to argue for the defendant-respondents.
7. The second appeal by the plaintiff was admitted by this court on 3.8.1998 on the following substantial question of law, namely:- Whether the Land Acquisition Collector is a necessary party in Title Suit No. 5/ 92 pending before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala.
8. A careful perusal of the pleadings and the evidence on record would show the admitted position that the suit was filed in 1992 by the plaintiff-appellant after a period of more than 12 years from the date of acquisition of the suit land by the L.A. Collector for the purpose of TRTC. The admitted position being that the right, title and interest stood vested with the State Government or the said Corporation and the possession was also taken over by the L.A. Collector during the land acquisition proceeding, a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction against the defendant-respondents in the absence of the L.A. Collector or the State Government or the TRTC cannot be legally sustainable. It has also not been denied that the suit of the defendant-respondents claiming compensation for the acquired lands was pending when the present suit was filed by the appellant. The proper course for the appellant was to join the suit filed by the defendant-respondents putting up a claim for compensation. Learned first appellate court upon perusal of the two notices (Ext. 2 and Ext. 3) observed that the L.A. Collector after making the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act asked the plaintiff-appellant to receive the amount awarded. Nowhere the plaintiff-appellant clarified why he did not receive the money or why he did not contest the claim, of the defendant-respondents for the compensation awarded for the suit land.
9. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, this appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below has no merit as the suit of the plaintiff-appellant without impleading the State Government or the L.A. Collector or the TRTC is not maintainable. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost.