JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J.:- Both these appeals under Section 100 of the CPC as well as the Cross Objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the CPC have resulted from the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 25/1985. 2. The suit was filed by the cross objectors whereas the appellants herein were the defendants. Against the said judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002, the appellants-Airport Authority of India had preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, being Title Appeal No. 59/2002. The cross objectors, Satya Gopal Roy and others had also preferred another appeal, being Cross Appeal No. 16 of 2003 against the said judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002. As the suit was partially decreed, the cross objectors’ appeal, being C.A. No. 16/2003 was allowed partially by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, No. 3 by a common judgment dated 14.11.2006. By the said common judgment, the appeal filed by the appellants-Airport Authority of India was dismissed. In the result, the Airport Authority of India had challenged that common judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006 for dismissing their appeal and for partly allowing the appeal filed by the cross objectors. 3. The appeal, being RSA No. 10/2007 has been filed against the dismissal of the appeal being T.A. No. 59/2002, whereas the appeal, being RSA No. 11/2007 has been filed for partly allowing the appeal being C.A. No. 16/2003. The cross objectors have also filed the cross objection, being CO(RSA) No. 03/2007 against the said common judgment and decree, whereby the part of the reliefs prayed in the suit was dismissed and the part of the reliefs was allowed. For purpose of having compensation for the remaining part of the land which has not been considered by the first appellate court, the cross objection has been filed. Thus it has been necessitated that both these appeals and the cross objection are required to be disposed of by a common judgment for avoidance of any conflicting observation and for harmonious appreciation of the grounds of objection. 4. The factual perspective is required to be laid at the outset for appreciating the substantial questions of law as raised by the appellants and the cross objectors. 5. 4. The factual perspective is required to be laid at the outset for appreciating the substantial questions of law as raised by the appellants and the cross objectors. 5. By filing a suit, being T.S. No. 25/1985, the plaintiffs, the cross objectors herein had prayed for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and for perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents-Airport Authority of India and their agents from entering into their suit land, which is admittedly the jote land belonging to the cross objectors, comprised in khatian No. 516 of Mouza Singerbil and C.S. Plot No. 869 (part), land measuring 1.09 acres and C.S. Plot No. 858 (part), land measuring 0.51 acres. According to the cross objectors, the cause for filing the suit arose when the Airport Authority, by their engaged contractor had started cutting earth in the suit land for purpose of raising some construction, presumably the boundary wall. When the labourers attempted to excavate the earth, they were resisted and, as such, the labourers left the place on 11.02.1985. Immediately thereafter, the said suit was filed taking special leave under Section 80(2) of the CPC. 6. There is no dispute as regards the title of the suit land. The admitted position is that the cross objectors are the owners in possession of the suit land. On the basis of the records, a temporary injunction restraining the appellants herein had been granted by the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Agartala, West Tripura. But, by the order dated 17.09.1996 passed in Misc. Appal No. 5/1996, the appellants were allowed by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala to construct the boundary wall on condition that they will pay compensation for the land of the plaintiffs which may fall within the boundary of the Airport Authority on the basis of the report of the Survey Commissioner. Even though admittedly the Airport Authority had acquired only.37 acre of land from C.S. Plot No. 869, but they had occupied much larger share of the said plot. They had also occupied the land measuring.96 acre in C.S. Plot No. 869 though the said piece of land was not acquired following the due process of law. The Airport Authority had been in possession of 1.33 acres of land in the C.S. Plot No. 869 whereas they had acquired only.37 acre of land by way of acquisition. They had also occupied the land measuring.96 acre in C.S. Plot No. 869 though the said piece of land was not acquired following the due process of law. The Airport Authority had been in possession of 1.33 acres of land in the C.S. Plot No. 869 whereas they had acquired only.37 acre of land by way of acquisition. Thus, the Airport Authority had occupied 1.12 acres of land in excess without acquisition. The Airport Authority had also contested the pleadings of the cross objectors. 7. Satya Gopal Roy, one of the plaintiffs, the respondent No. 1 herein was examined as PW. 1 and he had introduced the following documents in the evidence: But, no document or any other form of evidence had been introduced by the Airport Authority. 8. In terms of the order dated 26.11.1996 passed by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Civil Revision No. 53/1996, which revisional proceeding was instituted in the Gauhati High Court at the instance of the Cross objector-plaintiffs questioning the said order dated 17.09.1996, one Survey Commissioner was appointed for purpose of surveying the C.S. Plots No. 869, 858, 866 and 867 to ascertain the quantity of the land occupied by the Airport Authority and also to ascertain the amount of land which fell within the boundary wall. The said Survey Commissioner had filed the report, which was accepted provisionally on 30.04.2002, on examining the Survey Commissioner. 9. The trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that regarding the title there cannot be any dispute. Even the Airport Authority had not raised any objection. What the Airport Authority had disputed that they had not occupied or constructed or excavated the land belonging to the cross objectors. It is to be noted that as many as three Survey Commissioners were appointed by the trial court. Finally, the survey report submitted by one Simir Majumder on 19.03.1998 was provisionally accepted. By the order dated 22.11.1999, the said Survey Commissioner’s report dated 19.03.1998 was admitted in the evidence on providing opportunities to the parties for taking clarification at the time of hearing. The said Survey Commissioner was examined by the appellants herein. It appears that the Survey Commissioner had submitted his report alongwith the trace map drawn by him during the survey of the land. The Survey Commissioner’s report is available at Exbt. C in the record. 10. The said Survey Commissioner was examined by the appellants herein. It appears that the Survey Commissioner had submitted his report alongwith the trace map drawn by him during the survey of the land. The Survey Commissioner’s report is available at Exbt. C in the record. 10. The Survey Commissioner has categorically opined that for the Airport Authority of India, a piece of land measuring.91 acre (.54 acre under plot No. 858(part) and land measuring.37 acre under plot No. 869) was acquired, but on physical verification and measurement of the plot, the Survey Commissioner had found that the Airport Authority was in possession of the land measuring .54 decimal under plot No. 858, land measuring .16 decimal under plot No. 867 and land measuring 1.33 decimal under plots No. 869 and 870. According to the Survey Commissioner, the total land possessed by the Airport Authority was 2.03 decimal. The Survey Commissioner has further observed in his report that the Airport Authority was in possession of the land measuring .62 decimal under plot No. 869 and .71 decimal under plot No. 870/A. During examination, the Survey Commissioner has stated that he did not mention in his report about the mode of measurement and the documents relied by him during the survey of respective plots. He has also stated that he did not mention in the report which point was taken as the fixed point for starting the survey. Despite certain defects came to the fore from the statement of the Survey Commissioner as regards the report, the trial court had decided not to appoint another Survey Commissioner and proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the available materials on record. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002, the trial court has observed as under: As this Court appointed as many as 3 Survey Commissioners for location of the suit land and none of the Report found complete. I think there is no ground for appointment of another Survey Commissioner as this case is very old one. The Hon’ble High Court also in Writ Appeal No. 28/96 at the time of rejecting the Survey Commissioner’s Report conclude that no meaningful purpose will be served by directing the concerned Authority for another survey conducted. Instead of that the Hon’ble High Court proceeded for finally terminate the proceeding on the basis of available materials of the Record. The Hon’ble High Court also in Writ Appeal No. 28/96 at the time of rejecting the Survey Commissioner’s Report conclude that no meaningful purpose will be served by directing the concerned Authority for another survey conducted. Instead of that the Hon’ble High Court proceeded for finally terminate the proceeding on the basis of available materials of the Record. Taking the guideline of the above view of the Hon’ble High Court observed in Writ Appeal No. 28/96 I am also constraint to decide the case on the basis of other evidence on Record. 11. The impact of such observation may appear abandonment of the Survey Commissioner’s report. For the Airport Authority of India, one Naren Gogoi, Asstt. Manager has been examined as DW. 1. He has categorically stated that no part of the suit land is or was under the occupation of the Airport Authority of India. The land where they had constructed the boundary wall was on the acquired land, but they could not produce any record to that aspect of the matter. It is gathered from the record that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs, the cross objectors herein had preferred a petition under Section 95 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short TLR & LR Act) in the court of the Collector, West Tripura, Agartala for correction of the records of right in C.S. Plot No. 869 and 867 under Khatian No. 516 and of the map in respect of the aforesaid plots. The said petition, under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act was registered as Misc. Case No. 9/1996. After construction of the boundary wall the plaint was amended for incorporating the subsequent development. The reliefs were recasted accordingly. In Misc. Case No. 9/1996 (Exbt. The said petition, under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act was registered as Misc. Case No. 9/1996. After construction of the boundary wall the plaint was amended for incorporating the subsequent development. The reliefs were recasted accordingly. In Misc. Case No. 9/1996 (Exbt. 7), it has been observed by the Settlement Officer in his order at para 6 as under: Examined the enquiry report and it appears that the applicants were in possession of 4.06 acres of land and out of which 0.48 acres of land was transferred to other private persons from his jote land and as a result the applicants were the owner of 3.58 acres and out of 3.58 acres, Airport Authority had acquired 0.54 acres of land in part of sabek C.S. Plot No. 858 and 0.27 acres of land in part of sabek C.S. Plot No. 869 i.e. total 0.91 acres of land vide Gazette Notification No. F.17(13)ACQ/REV/77 dt. 22.03.78 A.D. but the Airport Authority has taken possession of entire area of 1.46 acres. On further scrutiny of the enquiry report of the Halka Officer the applicant were in possession of 0.71 acres of land in sabek C.S. Plot No. 870 as his jote land but the said land was recorded as khas land as part and parcel of sabek C.S. Plot No. 869 to corroborate the area that recorded as jote land of sabek C.S. Plot No. 869. Examined the records of C.S. Plot No. 869 right from Bujharat stage to final publication steps of last settlement operation and found that the area of C.S. Plot No. 869 has been recorded as 1.46 acres in each stage according to their jote land but on examination of the map of last settlement operation it appears that the map of C.S. Plot No. 869 has been prepared covering an area of 0.62 acres which is not conformity with the recorded area as 1.46 acres. On further examination of the R.O.Rs of the C.S. Plot No. 870 which is adjacent to C.S. Plot No. 869 and found that an area of 0.39 acres against C.S. Plot No. 870 has been recorded and finally published but on examination of the map it appears that the map of C.S. Plot No. 870 has been prepared covering an area of 1.44 acres which is also not in conformity with the finally published recorded area 0.39 acres. On examination of the map of C.S. Plot No. 869 and 870 it appears to have been found that the map of both the plots have not been prepared in conformity with the record as well as the physical possession ............ And it is therefore ordered that the common boundary as mentioned above be shifted towards south to reflect the real area of C.S. Plot No. 869 recorded in the last settlement operation minus the area 0.13 acres which require to be added in C.S. Plot No. 866 i.e. an area of 0.13 acres will be increased in C.S. Plot No. 866 and the same area of 0.13 acres be decreased from the C.S. Plot No. 869 to cover the total area of the khatian prepared during last settlement operation and at the same time the area of C.S. Plot No. 870 to be recorded as 0.73 acres. 12. From the said order passed by the Settlement Officer in Misc. Case No. 9/1996, it appears that the record of right in C.S. Plot No. 869 had been recorded as 1.46 acres right from the bujarat stage to the final publication during the settlement operation as the jote land of the plaintiffs. But, in the map of the settlement operation,.62 acre of land had been shown in the C.S. Plot No. 869, which is not in conformity with the recorded area of land measuring 1.46 acres. Again in C.S. Plot No. 870, which is adjacent to the C.S. Plot No. 869, an area of.39 acre had been recorded and was finally published, but in the map it was shown as 1.44 acres, which was also not in conformity with the finally published record measuring.39 acre of land. After examination of all the field reports, the Settlement Officer found that.71 acre of land in C.S. Plot No. 869 had been wrongly shown in C.S. Plot No. 870. It further appears from the said order that the possession taken by the defendants of the suit land, presuming the suit land in C.S. Plot No. 870, the Settlement Officer had ordered for shifting the common boundary in C.S. Plots No. 869 and 870 towards south to record the real area in C.S. Plot No. 869 as posted in the last settlement operation. Accordingly, the record of rights and the maps were rectified and as per the order of the Settlement Officer, the Khatian bearing No. 1342/1 had been corrected and was published. 13. On examination of Exbt. 1 it is found that the land measuring.71 acre had been recorded in the name of the plaintiffs pertaining to R.S. Plot No. 1476, corresponding to C.S. Plot No. 870(part). There is no dispute as regards the order of the Settlement Officer in Misc. Case No. 9/1996 that the said land pertains to C.S. Plot No. 869. According to the Gazette Notification, the land acquired was in aggregate.37 acre (.34 acre +.03 acre), from the C.S. Plot No. 869, out of the total land measuring 1.46 acres as reflected in Exbt. 11. But, in Exbt. 5, after acquisition, the remaining land has been recorded only as.25 acre instead of 1.09 acres. Therefore, in the Exbt. 5, there is shortage of.84 acre of land pertaining to C.S. Plot No. 869. Again, from the order of the Settlement Officer, Exbt. 7, it is found that the Airport Authority had taken possession of the whole land in C.S. Plot No. 869 of Khatian No. 516. The Settlement Officer has opined that the said view had been taken on the basis of the Inquiry Report of the Halka Officer and that report has been corroborated by the report of the Survey Commissioner. It is further gathered that the order passed by the Settlement Officer has not been challenged or rebutted in any manner by the defendants, the Airport Authority. The Airport Authority did not deny the title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land measuring.25 acre pertaining to C.S. Plot No. 869, corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1479 under R.S. Khatian No. 516. So, from a reading of Exbt. 7, the order of the Settlement Officer, Exbt. 5, the Khatian No. 516 and Exbt. C, the Survey Commissioner’s Report, it appears that at least.84 acre of land in C.S. Plot No. 869 of Khatian No. 516 was under the possession of the Airport Authority. It further appears from the order of the Settlement Officer that the land measuring.71 acre, out of the land measuring.84 acre in C.S. Plot No. 869 had been recorded in C.S. Plot No. 870(part), corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1476 of R.S. Khatian No. 1342/1 (Exbt. 1). It further appears from the order of the Settlement Officer that the land measuring.71 acre, out of the land measuring.84 acre in C.S. Plot No. 869 had been recorded in C.S. Plot No. 870(part), corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1476 of R.S. Khatian No. 1342/1 (Exbt. 1). The remaining area of land measuring.13 acre had been recorded in C.S. Plot No. 866, corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1474 of R.S. Khatian No. 516 (Exbt. 5), but the plaintiffs have no share on the said land. The trial court having situated thus had observed that the plaintiffs have their right, title and interest over the land measuring.71 acre, pertaining to C.S. Plot No. 870(part), corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1476 in R.S. Khatian No. 1342/1 (Exbt. 1) and the suit land has been found in the possession of the defendants. The said possession had been taken by the defendants during pendency of the suit. According to the trial court, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the land measuring.25 acre and land measuring.16 acre in C.S. Plots No. 869 and 867 respectively have been taken possession by the defendants during pendency of the suit. The other aspects of the matter as surveyed by the trial court that the plaintiffs are the owners having riyoti right over the C.S. Plot No. 867 (part), corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1475 in R.S. Khatian No. 516, comprising the land measuring.25 acre and, in C.S. Plot No. 870(part), corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1476, comprising the land measuring.71 acre. The finding of the trial court in this regard is required to be extracted: But I find no cause of action in respect of land measuring 0.16 acres under C.S. Plot No. 867(part) and land measuring.25 acres under C.S. Plot No. 869 corresponds to R.S. Plot No. 1479 as the defendants have not disputed about the right title interest of the aforesaid land and also have not taken possession of the suit land. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration of right title interest over the C.S. Plot No. 870(part) corresponds to R.S. Plot No. 1476 under Khatian No. 1342/1 (Ext. 1) for land measuring.71 acres. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to get declaration of right title interest over the C.S. Plot No. 870(part) corresponds to R.S. Plot No. 1476 under Khatian No. 1342/1 (Ext. 1) for land measuring.71 acres. Plaintiffs also prays for declaration that the defendants occupied the suit land described below belonging to the plaintiffs during pendency of the suit in the year 1996 in excess of the acquired land and the defendants are liable to pay compensation for the occupation of the suit land under provision of Land Acquisition Act waiving requirements issuing Notice U/S. 4 of L.A. Act and also for mandatory injunction directing the defts. to proceed for formal acquisition of the suit land under the provision of the L.A. Act. As I find from Issue No. 4 and Issue No. 5 that the defts. occupied the suit land under C.S. Plot No. 870 corresponds to R.S. Plot No. 1476 of Khatian No. 1342/1 for land measuring.71 acres during pendency of this suit and also that the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in Civil Revision No. 53/96 directed to pay compensation to the plaintiffs for the land found under possession of the defendants, the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation for land measuring.71 acres of land pertaining to C.S. Plot No. 870 corresponds to R.S. Plot No. 1476 under R.S. Khatian No. 1342/1 (Ext. 1). Though it is found that land measuring.13 acres pertaining to C.S. Plot No. 866 corresponds to R.S. Plot No. 1474 of R.S. Khatian No. 516 under possession of the defendants the plaintiff is not entitled to get any compensation for the aforesaid land as the same is relinquished in the prayer by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff is not entitled to get mandatory injunction directing the defendants to proceed for formal acquisition of the suit land under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act as it is the discretionary power of the requiring Department whether the land would be taken into possession by way of acquisition through the Land Acquisition Collector or by way of purchase of the same from the party concerned. But the plaintiff is entitled to compensation as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 53/96 and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to get mandatory injunction directing the defendants to take necessary step for payment of the compensation after proper assessment of value of the suit land in respect of C.S. Plot No. 870 corresponds to R.S. Plot No. 1476 for land measuring.71 acres under Ext. 1. 14. Thus, the trial court has declared the right, title and interest over the land in C.S. Plot No. 870, corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1476 under R.S. Khatian No. 1342/1 (Exbt. 1), comprising the land measuring.71 acre, which according to the trial court was/is under the possession of the Airport Authority and, accordingly, it has been observed that the Airport Authority shall pay the compensation after proper assessment by way of due negotiation with the plaintiffs or by way of the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act by referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, Agartala within 90 days. 15. As stated, the appeal filed against the order dated 09.09.2002 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Agartala, West Tripura, had been dismissed. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the cross objectors herein has been partly allowed on the basis of the following observations: As already noted above the report of the Survey Commissioner shows that the Airport Authority took possession of land measuring 2.03 acres and as per arithmetical calculation, it is obvious that the said authority has taken possession of 1.12 acres land in excess. From the said Exbt. "C" Survey Commissioner’s report it further transpires that they have rightly taken possession of land measuring 0.54 acres of C.S. Plot No. 858 (part) but has taken excess possession of land from C.S. Plot No. 869. According to the report they ought to have taken possession of land measuring 0.37 acres i.e. they have taken (.62-0.37) = 0.25 acres in excess. It is curious to note here that although khatian No. 870 does not seems to have been acquired but as per the Survey Commissioner’s report 0.71 acres of land have been occupied beyond the said notification. This C.S. Plot No. 870 is within khatian No. 516. The said C.S. Plot No. as per the said khatian belong to the plaintiff respondents and Exbt. 8 or Exbt. This C.S. Plot No. 870 is within khatian No. 516. The said C.S. Plot No. as per the said khatian belong to the plaintiff respondents and Exbt. 8 or Exbt. 9 does not show that the Govt. had the intention to acquire the said land where the Exbt. 8 & 9 (notification under Land Acquisition Act) confirms the fact that such C.S. Plot No. 870 of Khatian No. 516 not being acquired but had taken possession by the Airport Authority of India. The plaintiff clearly indicates in schedule III that land measuring 0.71 acres of land under the said C.S. Plot No. 870 has been occupied by the Airport Authority of India. The written statement submitted by the said appellant does not show any denial of taking possession of the said C.S. Plot No. 870. The Survey Commissioner Sri Simir Majumder was examined in the court on oath. He was also cross-examined. In his examination in chief he has clearly stated that 0.71 acres of land under C.S. Plot No. 870-A had been occupied by the Airport Authority of India. This fact of occupation of the C.S. Plot No. 870 has also not been denied by the respondent during trial/cross-examination. So, from the written statement and from the cross-examination of the Survey Commissioner it is established that land measuring 0.71 acres of land though not acquired under Exbt. 8, Exbt. 9 have been occupied by the Airport Authority of India. This inference is drawn basing on the silence of the Airport Authority of India about the said C.S. Plot and occupation thereof in the Written Statement and also during cross-examination of Survey Commissioner. This fact has been substantiated by Exbt. ’C’. This particular portion of the Survey Commissioner’s report may be relied on without raising any question of method adopted by the Survey Commissioner in measuring the land in as much as the Airport Authority of India has not denied taking over possession of 0.71 acres of land of the said C.S. Plot as already noted above are unequivocally proves the fact that the said plot of land was not concerned of acquisition and therefore, since the possession has been taken over it cannot be said that the Survey Commissioner travelled beyond the writ issued to him. Fact remains that the Survey Commissioner was under obligation to show the actuals of recent possession of land. Fact remains that the Survey Commissioner was under obligation to show the actuals of recent possession of land. It therefore follow that the Airport Authority of India has taken excess possession of 0.71 acres of land of C.S. Plot No. 870 and 0.25 acres of land under the C.S. Plot No. 869 (already indicated above), total land (0.71+0.25) = 0.96 acres. The Airport Authority of India was not justified in taking possession of said 0.96 acres of land. 16. According to the first appellate court, the order of the Settlement Officer dated 10.02.1997 passed in Misc. Case No. 9/1996 (Exbt. 7) has correctly observed that the confusion has arisen due to the common boundary of the C.S. Plots No. 869 and 870 drawn wrongly in the last settlement operation. By the common judgment dated 04.11.2006, passed in Title Appeal No. 59/2002 and Cross Appeal No. 16/2003, the appellate court has directed the defendants, the Airport Authority to pay just compensation for the pieces of land measuring 0.96 acre to the plaintiff, the cross objectors herein in terms of the orders dated 17.09.1996 and 26.11.1996 respectively passed in the referred Misc. Appeal No. 05/1996 and Civil Revision No. 53/1996. The impact of the said common judgment and order was that the appeal filed by the Airport Authority of India was dismissed, but further claim of the plaintiffs, the cross objectors herein has been allowed to some extent, but not as a whole, inasmuch as, out of the claim for compensation of the land measuring 1.12 acres, the compensation has been directed for 0.96 acre of land. Therefore, the cross objection against the judgment of the first appellate court has been filed for 0.16 acre of land comprised in C.S. Plot No. 867(part), corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1475 of Khatian No. 516. Needless to say, the appeals were directed against the judgment of affirmation as well as for enhancing the area of land for compensation. 17. Initially some substantial questions of law were formulated in both the appeals, being RSA No. 10/2007 and RSA No. 11/2007 by the order dated 19.03.2007, but those were found erroneously based on un-amended plaint. Needless to say, the appeals were directed against the judgment of affirmation as well as for enhancing the area of land for compensation. 17. Initially some substantial questions of law were formulated in both the appeals, being RSA No. 10/2007 and RSA No. 11/2007 by the order dated 19.03.2007, but those were found erroneously based on un-amended plaint. Later on, the substantial questions of law, at the instance of the appellants has been re-casted by the order dated 29.11.2013, which reads as under: Whether the Civil Court has any authority to direct acquisition of land in the possession of the defendants under the Land Acquisition Act? For purpose of reference, it would be apposite to refer the substantial questions of law as formulated in the cross-objection, being CO(RSA) No. 03/2007 by the order dated 01.08.2008, which reads as under: Whether rejection of the claim of the plaintiff-respondent Cross-Objectors in respect of 0.16 acre of land in C.S. Plot No. 867 in the impugned decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court below is product of non-reading of the pleadings and grounds in Cross-Objection and non-application of mind and as such perverse and liable to be reversed? 18. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has seriously embedded the jurisprudential objection as regards the authority of a Civil Court in exercising its jurisdiction to pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Land Acquisition for determining the compensation in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Mr. Deb has strongly contended that so far as the provisions of Section 9 of the CPC is concerned, it does not confer any Civil Court to exercise its jurisdiction to try the suit of a civil nature, cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred. According to Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel, the L.A. Act, 1894 being a self contained code has impliedly barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try any dispute arising from the land acquisition proceeding under the L.A. Act, 1894 or other similar Act. To buttress his contention, he has relied on a decision of the apex court in Laxmi Chand & Ors. Vs. To buttress his contention, he has relied on a decision of the apex court in Laxmi Chand & Ors. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia & Ors., reported in (1996) 7 SCC 218 , where it has been held that the Land Acquisition Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stands barred. The Civil Court thereby is bereft of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the Constitutional Courts for exercise of their plenary power. The Civil Court, therefore, does not have any power to try any matter arising out of the Land Acquisition Proceeding. 19. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has also relied on a decision of the apex court in the Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & Ors., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 496 . This decision is celebrated for laying down the law as to the extent of Section 9 of the CPC vis-a-vis the other Acts, in particular to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The illuminating observations made therein has shed light on the extent and ambit of Section 9 of the CPC. After incisive analysis, some principles have been formulated in Premier Automobiles Ltd. as under: (1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the civil Court. (2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. (3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act. (4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. [Emphasis added] 20. (4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter VA then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. [Emphasis added] 20. The question therefore is inextricably related to the nature of the dispute for purpose of determining whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by limitation or not. It is apparent on the records that the dispute that has arisen in the suit did not arise out of the Land Acquisition proceeding and as such even by necessary implication the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot held to be barred. Moreover, the trial court, in its judgment has observed that it is the defendant, the Airport Authority of India which may pay the compensation after proper assessment by way of due negotiation with the plaintiffs or by way of a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act by referring the matter to the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura, within 90 days. Therefore, no mandatory injunction has been issued by the trial court, directing the acquisition of the land under occupation of the Airports Authority of India and, as such, what has been held in Laxmi Chand does not have any application in the present context. Moreover, from the principles as formulated in Premier Automobiles Ltd., it is apparent that even in some disputes the jurisdiction may be coterminous. The forum may be elected at the option of the aggrieved person. Thus, there would be no bar on the Civil Courts to try such disputes. 21 In Dhulabhai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in AIR 1969 SC 78 , it has been held that: Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. 22. This court, in another appeal, being RSA No. 13/2007 (Smt. Hiran Bala Deb Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.) discussed the issue that in some matters even if the dispute is related to the Land Acquisition proceeding, the Civil Courts may have the jurisdiction which is coterminous or which is not excluded. 23. Thus, this court does not find any merit in the submission of Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and, as such, it is held that there is no illegality when the Civil Court has entertained the suit, but at the same time it is clarified that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to direct the Land Acquisition Collector or the appropriate Government for that matter to acquire any land under the occupation of the Government or its agencies. Since Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants did not raise other questions, this court will not direct its inquiry to that direction. Apart that, on close scrutiny of the records, even though there are certain observations which are not in congruity, but as a whole the matter relating to the occupation of the plots has been decided based on the local inquiry and on the order of the Settlement Officer or in the context that the defendants, the appellants herein did not oppose or confront such claim, despite the fact that the appellants by filing the written statement has denied such occupation in general. The trial court by excluding the area of land measuring.25 acre comprised in C.S. Plot No. 869, has discarded the finding of the Survey Commissioner on the ground that the said land was not part of the suit land. The trial court by excluding the area of land measuring.25 acre comprised in C.S. Plot No. 869, has discarded the finding of the Survey Commissioner on the ground that the said land was not part of the suit land. But such finding is contrary to the description of the suit land as provided under the plaint. However, on scrutiny, the first appellate court did not find any evidence that the remaining land (1.12 acre-.96 acre) admeasuring 0.16 acre comprised in C.S. Plot No. 867 (part) corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1475 under R.S. Khatian No. 516 is in the occupation of the defendants, the appellants herein and so is the finding of the trial court having referred to the order of the Settlement Officer (Exbt. 7). The said finding of the first appellate court has been questioned on the finding of the Survey Commissioner’s report where the excess under occupation of the Airport Authority has been shown to be 1.12 acre. By implication, it cannot be assumed or inferred that the differentiated excess land is comprised in the C.S. Plot No. 867 (part). 24. Thus, there is no perversity or misreading of the evidence in identifying the plaintiffs’ lands which are under occupation of the appellants. Hence, no further interference by this court is called for. Thus, both the appeals, being RSA No. 10/2007 and RSA No. 11/2007 as well as the cross objection, being CO(RSA) No. 03/2007 are dismissed subject to modification in the procedure of determination of compensation. 25. To obviate some difficulty, it is clarified that the plaintiffs are entitled to the compensation in terms of the order dated 26.11.1996 delivered in Civil Revision No. 53/1996 by the Gauhati High Court (Exbt. 13), which provides as under: But if it is found that the respondents have encroached the land of the petitioners then in that case the respondents will not only have to pay the price of the land but also compensation and costs. Learned Munsiff should direct the Survey Commissioner to submit his report within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of commission. 26. Learned Munsiff should direct the Survey Commissioner to submit his report within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of commission. 26. Therefore, the leave as granted to the appellants to complete the construction of the boundary wall was subject to undertaking of payment of price and other compensation for the land if it is found that the appellants are in occupation over the jote land of the plaintiffs. Since it has been found from the evidence that the appellants are in the occupation of the land measuring.71 acre, pertaining to C.S. Plot No. 870(part), corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1476 in R.S. Khatian No. 1342/1 (Exbt. 1) and.25 acre pertaining to C.S. Plot No. 869, corresponding to R.S. Plot No. 1479 under R.S. Khatian No. 516 (Exbt. 5), in aggregate.96 acre, the plaintiffs are entitled to get the price of the land and for other damages. The appellants are directed to fix the said compensation on considering the base date of possession on 26.11.1996 following the general principles of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 alongwith interest within a period of 3(three) months from the date of placing of the certified copy of the judgment and order by the plaintiffs-cross objectors. It is further made clear that if for any reason the compensation appears not satisfactory to the plaintiffs, they may ask for arbitration and, for that purpose both the plaintiffs-cross objectors and the defendants, the appellants herein may appoint one Arbitrator each and before the arbitration proceeding commenced, the Arbitrators may appoint one umpire of their confidence within 30(thirty) days from the date of their appointments. The Airport Authority of India shall appoint their Arbitrator within 15(fifteen) days from the date of notice from the plaintiffs by appointing their Arbitrator. Such appointment of the Arbitrator shall be made by the plaintiffs within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the communication on fixing compensation for the excess land under possession of the appellants. If no Arbitrator is appointed by the plaintiffs within the stipulated period, the determination by the appellants shall be final. The cost of the arbitration proceeding shall be borne by the parties equally. The arbitration proceeding be conducted in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The entire arbitration shall be completed within 6(six) months from the date of appointment of the umpire. The cost of the arbitration proceeding shall be borne by the parties equally. The arbitration proceeding be conducted in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The entire arbitration shall be completed within 6(six) months from the date of appointment of the umpire. This is in substitution of what has been provided for determination of compensation. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the Lower Court Records.