JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. DCK Hazarika, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant and Mr. SN Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 2. The present appellant is the defendant in T.S. No. 157/1994 (new)/T.S. No. 37/1987 (old) in the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No. 1 Jorhat, which was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration of its right, title and interest, ejectment and recovery of the possession of the suit land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents as pleaded in the plaint is that the Plaintiff No. 2/respondent No.2 is a registered company having its registered office at Kolkata and Hanuwal Tea Estate is the unit of the aforesaid company. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is the Senior Manger of the said Tea Estate. The defendant/appellant was an employee of the said Tea Estate and as per the service rule, he was provided a garden quarter. The subject matter of the suit is the said garden quarter and the land appurtenant to it. 3. The defendant/appellant came into the occupation of the suit property in the year 1975 alongwith the said quarter. The defendant/appellant had also occupied the adjoining plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 4 Kathas and 10 Lechas and used the same as kitchen garden. However, claiming possession of the suit land, the defendant instituted T.S. No. 109/80 which was dismissed. The defendant/appellant also failed to get any favourable order even before the appellate court. The plaintiffs/respondents pleaded that on 2.8.1983, the defendant/appellant was dismissed from service after initiation of a departmental proceeding. The defendant/appellant made a reference before the Labour Court, Dibrugarh and the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh affirmed the order of the dismissal. Even after the order of his dismissal from service, the defendant/appellant continued to occupy the suit land and the plaintiffs/respondents vide registered notice dated 4.12.1986 asked the defendant/appellant to vacate the suit house. Though the said notice was duly received, the defendant/appellant failed to comply with the demand of the plaintiffs/respondents. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents instituted T.S. No. 37/1987 for eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit house and the land. Later on, the suit was renumbered as T.S. No. 157/1994. 4. The defendant/appellant resisted the suit by filing his written statement. Though the said notice was duly received, the defendant/appellant failed to comply with the demand of the plaintiffs/respondents. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents instituted T.S. No. 37/1987 for eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit house and the land. Later on, the suit was renumbered as T.S. No. 157/1994. 4. The defendant/appellant resisted the suit by filing his written statement. It is claimed by the defendant/appellant that the Moriani Medical Association was the owner of the suit land and the house. The said Association became defunct and the Tea Estate had tried to acquire the suit land and the house. But denying the right title and interest of the owner, he has been occupying the suit land adversely since 1969. It is denied by the defendant/appellant that he was allowed to occupy the suit house as ancillary to his service. It is further claimed that in T.S. No. 73/1987 pending in the said court, the plaintiffs/respondents admitted that the suit land is a part of ceiling surplus land acquired by the Government vide Gazette Notification dated 22.1.1976. The said ceiling surplus land measuring 12 Bighas was under the occupation of the appellant/defendant, one Sri Tuwaram Dutta and one Mir Ali and others, but the plaintiffs/respondents influenced the District Authority and tried to review the area of the said ceiling land measuring 8 Bighas 7 Lechas from the actual area of 12 Bighas. Denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit land and the house, the appellant/defendant pleaded that suit was bad for non-joinder of the State of Assam, who acquired the suit land as ceiling surplus land and he had already taken steps before the Government to get settlement of the suit land. Final pleading was that there is no cause of action for the suit, same being barred by law of Limitation. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues and additional issues were framed by the learned trial court. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit land and the house standing thereon? 2. Whether the defendant was inducted therein by the plaintiffs as their employee in accordance with the prevailing service conditions? 3. Whether in view of the defendant’s removal from plaintiffs’ service, he is liable to be evicted? 4. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit land and the house standing thereon? 2. Whether the defendant was inducted therein by the plaintiffs as their employee in accordance with the prevailing service conditions? 3. Whether in view of the defendant’s removal from plaintiffs’ service, he is liable to be evicted? 4. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled in law and equity? Additional issues: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit has been filed by an authorized person? 3. Whether the suit is competent and maintainable in law? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the State of Assam? 6. Both the parties adduced their evidence in support of the respective pleading by examining the witnesses and exhibiting documents. The learned trial court after hearing the counsels of the parties decreed the suit with cost. 7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellant preferred T.A. No. 25/2002 against the decree dated 5.6.2002, passed in T.S. No. 157/1994 by the learned trial court in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jorhat. The first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2003 dismissed the said T.A. Appeal No. 25/2002. 8. The defendant/appellant thereafter preferred this second appeal, which was admitted on 19.2.2004 by this court framing the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under Section 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963? (2) Whether the court below erred in law in holding that the defendant was not entitled to claim ceiling surplus land under the provisions of the Assam Land (Holdings on Ceiling), 1956? 9. Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the court below failed to appreciate the various documents, especially the Ext. No. 21 relied by the plaintiffs/respondents which is an order dated 12.3.2001, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat in Misc. Case No. 2/2000. By the said order, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat illegally reverted the suit land covering the house from the purview of ceiling. As apparent from the said order, though the said land was freed from the purview of ceiling process, but the settlement order dated 26.6.1990 in favour of the appellant/defendant was not set aside. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hazarika submits that the settlement order Ext. As apparent from the said order, though the said land was freed from the purview of ceiling process, but the settlement order dated 26.6.1990 in favour of the appellant/defendant was not set aside. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hazarika submits that the settlement order Ext. “ga” dated 26.6.1990 in favour of the appellant is still in existence covering the suit land and on the other hand both the courts below had declared the right, title and interest over the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents which is contradictory. It is further submitted that the land ceiling notification of the land of the plaintiffs/respondents was published in the year 1976 but the plaintiffs/respondents never even bothered to challenge the draft publication of the land ceiling statement. Finally, the said draft statement took its final form whereafter the Govt. acquired the same and settled with the defendant/appellant vide Ext. “ga”. 10. Mr. Hazarika further submits that the order passed vide Ext. 21 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat is totally without jurisdiction. He submits that the final order against such acquisition after completion of the ceiling process can be challenged before the District Judge as prescribed under provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1956), which was not done by the plaintiffs/respondents. Rather after filing of the suit and on the submission of the written statement by the defendant/appellant, the plaintiffs/respondents moved the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat and collusively obtained the Ext. 21. The order as per Ext. 21 is totally an illegal order passed by a wrong forum and as such it has got no value in the eye of law. 11. Non-consideration of the said order with regard to its validity itself, shows that the whole judgment and decree passed by both the courts below has no legal sanctity. 12. Mr. Hazarika further submits that the defendant/appellant is all along in possession of the suit land since 1969 and the process of ceiling was initiated in the year 1976 and during the process itself the prescribed period of 12 years under the Limitation Act, 1963 for recovery of possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs/respondents expired. 12. Mr. Hazarika further submits that the defendant/appellant is all along in possession of the suit land since 1969 and the process of ceiling was initiated in the year 1976 and during the process itself the prescribed period of 12 years under the Limitation Act, 1963 for recovery of possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs/respondents expired. The possession of defendant/appellant over the suit land is adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs/respondents and as such the suit is hit under the provision of Section 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Finally, Mr. Hazarika submits that the substantial questions of law so formulated are to be decided in favour of the appellant/defendant. 13. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs submits that both the courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted that the appellant/defendant was an employee of the plaintiffs/respondents and as per the service rules, the defendant/appellant was allotted the suit house as his official quarter and as such, entry into the said house and the land appurtenant to it, is nothing but a permissive one and under no circumstances he could claim right, title and interest over the suit property. It is submitted that the appellant/defendant filed T.S. No. 109/1980 claiming injunction and recovery of compensation against the plaintiffs/respondents. The said suit was dismissed vide Ext. 9, the decree passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat. The said decree was passed on 20.2.1986. Prior to passing of the decree, the present appellant/defendant was dismissed from his service on 2.8.1983. The said dismissal of the appellant was challenged before the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh, which was upheld by the said Labour Court. Thereafter the appellant preferred a writ petition before this court and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the appellant to vacate the suit house and on the part of the plaintiffs/respondents, it was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000.00 (Rupees forty-five thousand) only to the defendant/appellant. The plaintiffs/respondents paid the said amount as per the direction of the Gauhati High Court, but on the part of the appellant/defendant, he failed to vacate the said house i.e. the official quarter. The eviction notice was also issued to the appellant/defendant vide Ext. 11. There was no compliance on his part to vacate the same. The plaintiffs/respondents paid the said amount as per the direction of the Gauhati High Court, but on the part of the appellant/defendant, he failed to vacate the said house i.e. the official quarter. The eviction notice was also issued to the appellant/defendant vide Ext. 11. There was no compliance on his part to vacate the same. Finally, the suit was filed praying the relief for his ejectment 13 from the suit house and suit land and also for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs/respondents thereon. 14. Mr. Sarma further submits that vide Ext. 2(1), the plaintiff/respondents had already surrendered 1024 Bighas of land covered under various Dag numbers to the Government within the purview of the said Act of 1956. After such surrender of the excess land, 8 Bighas 12 Lechas of land under the redeem Patta No. 155 was released by the Government in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and to that effect a certificate was issued which is Ext. 3. The defendant/appellant is possessing the land within the said 8 Bighas 12 Lechas of land of redeem Patta No. 155. Under such circumstances, Mr. Sarma submits that the existence of the settlement order in favour of the defendant/appellant has nothing to do, so far the plaintiffs/respondents are concerned. The settlement order favouring the defendant/appellant must be with respect to the Government land, but not on the land of the plaintiffs/respondents. 15. Having declared by the competent authority that the suit land is within the said 8 Bighas 12 Lechas of land, the settlement order in favour of the defendant/appellant cannot be a bar in passing the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents declaring his eviction. It is further submitted by Mr. Sarma that no wrong findings have been given by both the courts below and as such this second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. Perused the case record alongwith the exhibits relied by both the parties to this appeal. Under Section 32 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, it has been specifically stipulated that except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, no decision or order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act of 1956 shall be called in question in any Court. Under Section 32 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, it has been specifically stipulated that except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, no decision or order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act of 1956 shall be called in question in any Court. Further Section 31 of the said Act of 1956 prescribes that the appellate authority is the District Judge, or the original order when no appeal is preferred, shall be final. 17. In the present case in hand, the dispute is mainly with respect to the suit land which the plaintiffs/respondents claimed to be ceiling free land and on the other hand, the defendant/appellant claimed that as the settlement order vide Ext. ‘ga’ still remains in existence, under such circumstances, the suit land which is ceiling surplus land is the land settled to him as per Ext. ‘ga’. There is no dispute that the order as per the Ext. ‘ga’ remains as it is and the land shown therein remains as it is as because no specific boundary has been mentioned demarcating the land settled with the appellant. Ext. 3 clearly supports the claim of plaintiffs/respondents that the land over which the said suit house is situated alongwith the land appurtenant, falls within 8 Bighas 12 Lechas of land which is certified to be ceiling free land. On the other hand, the settlement order in favour of the defendant/appellant still exists which is not disputed by the plaintiffs/respondents, but to provide settlement on the strength of Ext. ‘ga’ is a matter within the jurisdiction and competency of the concerned Revenue Department and that too within Government land as per the provisions of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. 18. So far the civil courts are concerned, it is the duty of the civil court to declare the civil rights of any litigants with respect to the subject matter of the suit. Both the courts below came to the findings that the suit land is beyond the purview of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 and the same is ceiling free land. 19. In such a situation, the courts below declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs/respondents with respect to the suit land which as per the record is not a ceiling surplus land. 19. In such a situation, the courts below declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs/respondents with respect to the suit land which as per the record is not a ceiling surplus land. The substantial question of law No. 2 in the true sense is not at all substantial so far the dispute between the parties is concerned. It is not the case before the courts below that the defendant/appellant is not entitled to claim ceiling surplus land under the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 but it is the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that they are entitled to the suit land as it belongs to them and as such they sought for right, title and interest over the suit land. It is the defence taken by the defendant/appellant that he was settled with the ceiling surplus land under the said Act of 1956. In such a situation, the act of providing any settlement to any person is upon the Government and the ceiling surplus land on which the settlement is given, definitely must be Government land duly acquired under a statute. The courts below after going through the materials on record came to the conclusion that the suit land is not ceiling surplus land under the provision of the said Act of 1956 and as such, declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs/respondents over the suit land, both the courts below held that the defendant/appellant is not entitled for settlement of the suit land and house, which does not fall within ceiling 18 surplus land under the said Act. Accordingly, there is no error in the findings of both the courts below with respect to the substantial question of law No. 2. 20. With regard to the second substantial question of law, the pleadings of the defendant/appellant are contradictory. On one hand, he is claiming right, title and interest on the basis of the adverse possession without there being any pleading with regard to the ingredients, so far adverse possession is concerned. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/respondents stated that the land upon which he claims adverse possession is ceiling surplus land. On one hand, he is claiming right, title and interest on the basis of the adverse possession without there being any pleading with regard to the ingredients, so far adverse possession is concerned. On the other hand, the plaintiffs/respondents stated that the land upon which he claims adverse possession is ceiling surplus land. The pleading of adverse possession never comes over the ceiling surplus land inasmuch as when the Government acquires said ceiling surplus land, the same is done without any encumbrance or encumbrances whatsoever and in what manner the same are created. Accordingly, the other substantial question of law No. 1 is decided against the defendant/appellant. As the entry of the appellant to the suit land and house is a permissive one and the appellant failed to show anything that he had been possessing the suit land with the intent to dispossess the plaintiffs/respondents at least from the date on which the suit land was released from the purview of ceiling process vide Ext. 3. Moreover, there is no pleading as to from which point of time, the possession of the defendant/appellant had become adverse. 21. Finally, this second appeal is dismissed. Send back the LCR. No cost.