Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 48 (GAU)

Mangilal Agarwalla v. State of Assam and Ors.

1993-03-04

S.N.PHUKAN

body1993
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 35 of 1986. By the said judgment and order the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit before the learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh against the State of Assam, Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh and Sub-Deputy Collector, Moran for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interferring with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. The area of the suit land is 4 katha 19f lessas and covered by Dag No. 437 (Part Ka), Dag No. 104 (Part Ka) and Dag No. 491 (Part Ka and Ga). According to the plaintiff this land was settled by the State Government with him. The land is situated in the Moran Town. The plaintiff also claimed that as per direction of the State Government the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. Subsequently however the defendants threatened verbally to evict the plaintiff and hence the suit. 3 Defendants appeared but failed to file written statement in spite of adjournments granted by learned trial Court. It is stated Mr. Banerjee, learned Govt. Advocate that an objection was filed against the injunction giving full details with the stands of the defendants. The suit proceeded exparte and the plaintiff deposed before the Court and also exhibited certain documents. However, the learned trial Court rejected the case of the plaintiff, mainly on the ground that the settlement order was not duly signed by the issuing authority and the land was not in possession of the plaintiff. On these grounds the trial Court held that the land was not in possession with the plaintiff. It is not necessary to state elaborately what is stated in the impugned judgment, I may record here that while admitting this appeal this Court directed, in the interim, the possession of the plaintiff shall not be disturbed. 4 Heard Mr. AK Maheswari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Banerjee, learned Govt. Advocate. I have gone through the judgment and evidence on record. Mr. Maheswari produced the original letter of the settlement issued by the State Govt. marked as Ext 1 and others documents exhibited before the learned trial Court. 4 Heard Mr. AK Maheswari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Banerjee, learned Govt. Advocate. I have gone through the judgment and evidence on record. Mr. Maheswari produced the original letter of the settlement issued by the State Govt. marked as Ext 1 and others documents exhibited before the learned trial Court. From the Ext 1, I find that the State Govt. settled the land in question with the plaintiff and directed that the land records may be corrected. Accordingly this letter was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner and in the said letter the market value of the land to be paid by the plaintiff was also shown. From the evidence on record I find that this letter was produced before the learned Court and the signature of the Deputy Secretary in the marked portion was exhibited and was marked as Ext 1 (i). Therefore the finding of the learned trial Court that this letter was not duly signed is absolutely without any basis. On this ground alone the judgment is liable to be set aside. Ext 2 is the original challan by which premium of Rs. 34,553.25 was paid by the plaintiff. This challan has the stamp of the bank acknowledging receipt of the amount. According to Mr. Banerjee this amount is not in respect of the suit land but in respect of some other land measuring 1 bigha which was settled with the plaintiff but as stated by Mr. Maheswari in the challan specific Dag Nos. and area are indicated. 5. In the judgment the learned trial Court it was recorded that it had not the opportunity to see the original of the document marked as Ext 1 but the original has been handed over to me and I find that while marking Ext. it was duly signed by the Court along with the signature and it is unfortunate the Court did not go into this matter properly. 6. This Court ought to have decreed the suit but in view of the statement made by Mr. Banerjee regarding possession and also settlement, I deem fit and appropriate to remand it to the learned trial Court. 6. This Court ought to have decreed the suit but in view of the statement made by Mr. Banerjee regarding possession and also settlement, I deem fit and appropriate to remand it to the learned trial Court. It is made clear that if settlement of any land is made by the competent authority and premium is also paid, the person with whom the land is settled and possession of the land is also handed over, the person acquired legal right to obtain patta. Keeping in view of th? above legal position, the learned trial Court shall re-write the judgment on the basis of materials and evidence on record and I direct the plaintiff to produce the original documents, namely Ext. 1,2 and 4 for satisfaction of the trial Court. I also make it clear that periodic patta i.e. the lease is a document which is executed in pursuance to settlement order is. issued and premium paid a person is entitled to get the title over the land. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. The learned trial Court shall re-write the judgment as per observations made above. Parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 20.4.1993 for obtaining orders. Plaintiff shall continue to be in possession of the land. Office to send down the records immediately. No costs.