Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 660 (GAU)

Nyaki Bagra v. Officer Commandant, 44 BRTF, Aalo

2021-11-03

ROBIN PHUKAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. This appeal, under section 48 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945, is preferred by Shri Nyaki Bagra, Son of Shri Punya Bagra of Village - Rigo, West Siang District, Aalo, against the judgment/order dated 29.11.2012, passed by Shri T. Bagra, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar in Case No. BSR/CA-70-07. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order the ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar has confirmed the title, possession, occupation, and interest in respect of Timper Land (DL) measuring 7224 square meter, in favour of respondent i.e. 44 BRTF. 2. The factual background leading to filing of this appeal petition is briefly stated as under:- "The appellant, Shri Nyaki Bagra has purchased a plot of land known as Timper Land, measuring 8176 Sqr. Mtr. situated at Rigo Village, from Lt. Dugre Ado for a sum of Rs. 1100 (Rupees eleven hundred) in the year 1979, and to that effect he entered into an agreement with Dugre Ado on 1979. While the appellant purchased the Timper Land, part of the same was under the possession of Officer Commandant, 44 BRTF, Aalo, the respondent in the present appeal. After purchasing the plot of land from Lt. Dugre Ado, the appellant decided to construct his own residence there and he made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo on 14.09.1979, to take necessary steps for vacation of the plot of land by the respondent. And the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo then replied that, the settlement was on temporary in nature, and there is no cause for worry as the respondent would soon vacate the same plot of land voluntarily. Upon such reply of Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, the appellant was in hope that the respondent would vacate the said plot of land. However, the respondent continued to be in possession of the said plot of land, till 1981. During pendency of the of the petition of the plaintiff/appellant, Lt. Dugre Ado has illegally sold the land again to BRTF through Deputy Commissioner on 24/11/1981 for a consideration of Rs. 4000/(Rupees four thousand) only. And further he issued no objection to transfer of the ownership of the plot land to the Government. Thereafter, plaintiff/appellant approached Lt. Dugre Ado for a settlement and pursuant to that settlement Lt. Dugre Ado has illegally sold the land again to BRTF through Deputy Commissioner on 24/11/1981 for a consideration of Rs. 4000/(Rupees four thousand) only. And further he issued no objection to transfer of the ownership of the plot land to the Government. Thereafter, plaintiff/appellant approached Lt. Dugre Ado for a settlement and pursuant to that settlement Lt. Dugre Ado took back the disputed land from the plaintiff/appellant on 19.02.1983, on the condition that Lt. Dugre Ado will do away his government allotted land at Gumin Nagar Aalo, measuring and area of 68 meter x 45 meter (3060 Square Meter) to the plaintiff/appellant, in lieu of his Timper Land. This settlement was done in presence of one witness namely Shri Sokto Gamlin and on the condition that either party will not agitate/dispute the settlement exchange in what so ever manner. Pursuant to such settlement the plaintiff/appellant and Dugre Ado jointly made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo on 29.06.1984, for transfer of the allotted land at Gumin Nagar, Aalo to the plaintiff/appellant. And pursuant to such mutual transfer and representation the EAC, West Siang District, Aalo, communicated to the Director of land record for approval of allotment of the land transfer to the appellant vide letter No. WS/REV-19/97, dated 15.07.1987. Since the area of Timper Land of the appellant was 150x58 Mtr. of total 8700 square meter. and the land transfer to him was only 3060 square meter then the plaintiff/appellant made an application for allotment of waste/rejected marshy land at Gumin Nagar, which was already included in the Sketch Map of the land of the plaintiff/appellant on 14.12.1990. While the Government was considering for grant of approval for the allotment of the land to the plaintiff/appellant, people started encroaching upon the land of the plaintiff/appellant that was already included in the Sketch Map of the land. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellant made a complaint against the encroacher before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo who directed the Town Magistrate to make the land free from encroachment. While the Government failed to allot the waste/rejected marshy land to the appellant, then the appellant made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, on 05.02.1992, for recovery of the excess land that was being occupied by BRTF other than the 3060 Sqr. Mtr that was exchange with the appellant. While the Government failed to allot the waste/rejected marshy land to the appellant, then the appellant made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, on 05.02.1992, for recovery of the excess land that was being occupied by BRTF other than the 3060 Sqr. Mtr that was exchange with the appellant. Then the EAC (REV), vide letter No. WS/REV-4/96, dated 02.02.1996, asked the respondent to furnish a copy of the Blue Print Sketch Map of the land so that matter could be clarified by the District Administration. But, the BRTF never furnished any such Blue Print to the District Administration. Though the appellant continued to make representation to the Deputy Commissioner, the same failed to yield any result. Thereafter, on 12.09.1996, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo directed the appellant to pay the annual lease rent of the land along with the arrears amounting to Rs. 16,767/- (Rupees sixteen thousand seven hundred sixty-seven), the appellant paid all the revenue. The appellant was aggrieved by the fact that he had to pay a premium of Rs. 16,767/- (Rupees sixteen thousand seven hundred sixty-seven), whereas the Timper land was a private land and no premium was needed to be paid for the said land, and meaning thereby, the allotted land of the appellant was not allotted in exchange of the Timper Land. Hence the appellant made the representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, in November 1996, for returning of unused/unoccupied land of Timper Land, as waste/rejected land at Gumin Nagar was included in the Sketch Map and being encroached by the individuals repeatedly as the same had not been allotted to the appellant despite several representations, but none of the representation failed to bear any fruit. And the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, turned a deaf ear to the applications submitted by the appellant, then the appellant approached to this Court by filing a Writ Petition, being WP(C) No. 82(AP)/2002, and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.12.2004, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to take up the Case of the appellant in the light of representations dated 11.07.1997, and 05.01.2001. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner had finally taken up the matter and after hearing the appellant and the respondent, and passed an order on 22.06.2007, and directed the Land Management Staff to conduct ground survey and submit report to ascertain availability of any unoccupied/unused portion of Timper Land at Rigo, as the area allotted to the appellant at Aalo, was not commensurate with the area donated to the respondent. Then the Staff of the Land Management surveyed and verified the land, on 11.07.2007, in presence of the respondent as well as the appellant and while conducting the ground survey the land that out of the total area of the Timper Land 6214.53 square meter in the occupation of the BRTF, while 1009.50 square meter was lying vacant. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, instead of allotting the unused/unoccupied land to the appellant, very surprisingly, transferred the matter to the First Tract Court, Basar, wherein a Case No. BSR/CA-70/07 was registered, though the appellant never filed any suit against the respondent, BRTF. Rather the appellant had only made an application/representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, for the allotment of the unused/unoccupied land at Timper Land and the Land Management Department, after survey and verification had found that there was some unused/unoccupied land. Thereafter, in the said case, issues were framed and deposition of the appellant and the respondents were recorded. And thereafter, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar pronounce its judgment dated 29.11.2012, declaring the right, title and interest over the Timper land in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, in the said case, issues were framed and deposition of the appellant and the respondents were recorded. And thereafter, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar pronounce its judgment dated 29.11.2012, declaring the right, title and interest over the Timper land in favour of the respondent. And being dissatisfied and highly aggrieved with the said judgment, this appeal is preferred on the ground that:- (a) The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, committed grave error in law as well as in fact in passing the order dated 29.11.2012; (b) The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, failed to appreciate that the appellant had in fact only filed an application for reverting of vacant/unused area at Timper Land and as such an application of the appellant could not have been registered as Title Suit; (c) The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, has also failed to appreciate that the appellant had no issues with the BRTF rather, appellant had issues with the Government for reversion of unused area of Timper land and the Government by conducting ground survey and verification was also desirous of reverting the unoccupied area to the appellant; (d) The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, also failed to appreciate that the BRTF was not a necessary party to the issues of the appellant as it has issues only with the Government; (e) That the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, failed to adjudicate upon the main issue of the appellant that the unoccupied area at Timper Land be reverted back to the appellant and the impugned judgment is totally silent on the same; (f) The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, failed to issue summoned to the Government and implead them as a party in the proceeding; (g) The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, also failed to take into account the direction issued by this Court in the writ Petition and that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, erroneously decided the title in favour of the BRTF which was not even an issue for decision before the Deputy Commissioner. And therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2012, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, in case No. BSR/CA-70/07". 3. I have heard the learned advocates for the appellant and for the respondent at length. 4. Mr. And therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2012, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, in case No. BSR/CA-70/07". 3. I have heard the learned advocates for the appellant and for the respondent at length. 4. Mr. V. Jamoh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar suffered from serious infirmities as the appellant has never filed a Title Suit before him. The appellant has only prayed before the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo for reverting the unused plot of Timper Land to him but the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo in contravention of the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition wrongly transferred the case to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar has registered the same as Title Suit in spite of absence of any plaint. It is further submitted that the appellant has no issues with the respondent; it had issues with the Government only for reverting the unused plot of land of Timper land to him. But the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar has treated his representation submitted to the Deputy Commissioner as Title Suit and decided the title suit of Timper land in favour of the respondent. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel referred two case laws: (i) Maluk Yomgam Vs. Damli Yomcha & Others : 2016 (3) GLT 344 and (ii) Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Others Vs. Director Health Services, Haryana and Others : (2013) 10 SCC 136 , and submitted that though the appellant has participated in the trial before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar, yet, participation does not confer any jurisdiction upon the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar to decide the title and therefore, Mr. Jamoh, contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar has rightly decide the title in favour of the respondent and the appellant having participated in the same, now, he cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar before this appellate Court. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar has rightly decide the title in favour of the respondent and the appellant having participated in the same, now, he cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar before this appellate Court. It is further submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and therefore, contended to dismiss the same by upholding the judgment and order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar. 6. Having heard the submission of learned advocates of both the sides, we have gone through the records, carefully. It appears that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar on receipt of the representation of the appellant, treated the same as a plaint and thereafter, ask the respondent to submit written statement and on submission of written statement by the respondent, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar framed following 11 issues:- (1) Whether the D/L is a government land? (2) Whether the D/L form part of the sale deed entered in between Dugre Ado during 1979? (3) What was the actual area in sqmtrs purchased the petitioner? (4) When did the BRTF started occupying that D/L and what structure was standing on it? (5) When did the petitioner agitated against the BRTF for possessing the said D/L claiming it to be part of sale transaction entered in 1979? (6) Did the petitioner get any compensation allowance in lieu of the D/L from the government, if so, what when and where? (7) Is there any authority issued by the local administration in favour either the petitioner or the respondent? (8) Whether the parties are entitled to claim a for the D/L after so obsolete a period? (9) When did the respondent entered into the D/L and on what authority? (10) Whether the parties are entitled to any relief as per law, justice and fair play? (11) What is the actual area which is in stake and on contest? 7. Thereafter, hearing the parties, the ld. Court below had arrived at following findings:- (a) Vide PEX-5 submitted before the ld. Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, the petitioner himself submits that the land allotted to Lt. (11) What is the actual area which is in stake and on contest? 7. Thereafter, hearing the parties, the ld. Court below had arrived at following findings:- (a) Vide PEX-5 submitted before the ld. Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, the petitioner himself submits that the land allotted to Lt. Dugre Ado at Aalo Town measuring 68 meters x 45 meters be transferred in his favour in lieu of Timper land measuring 8176 square meters; (b) The land (D/L) occupied by BRTF was in possession of the BRTF since 1962 prior to the purchased by petitioner in 1979; (c) The petitioner and late Dugre Ado/seller entered into an agreement on 19/02/1983, with an unqualified acceptance that the plot of land allotted to Dugre Ado at Aalo Town at Gumin Nagar measuring an area 68 x 45 square meters (3060 sqr. meters) be transferred to the petitioner in lieu of the DL which speaks that the BRTF occupied plot has reverted back to the original owner late Dugre Ado. (d) Late Dugre Ado after exchanging his government plot with the petitioner received final payment of compensation from the respondent BRTF through Deputy Commissioner subsequent to which an area measuring 2.32 acres was allotted to the 44 BRTF by the Deputy Commissioner. (e) The government in pursuant to the joint application and thereafter, application by the petitioner himself on several occasions has transferred the land of late Dugre Ado in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the BRTF occupied land vide allotment order No. WS REV-19/96(PT) Dated- Along, 17/09/2006, wherein it is specifically mentioned quote "once originally allotted to Sri Dugre Ado of Rigo Village in exchange of his land given to 44 BTRF at Amar camp Aalo for construction of residential building vide this office order No. 8825/70, dated. 05/11/84 is now transferred and hereby allotted in favour of Sri Nyaki Bagra, Son of Pinya Bagra of Rigo Village as approved by the government of A.P., vide letter No. LR-57/91, Dated, 30/08/1996". (f) Referring to the agreement in between Nyaki Bagra and Late Dugre Ado on 19/02/1983, there is no other condition mentioning that the government plot to be exchanged shall be commensurate with the area to be exchanged rather they unqualifiedly have left a remark that this agreement shall be binding on both the parties and no one shall agitate or claim whatsoever in future in connection to Timper land. (g) Surprisingly in the joint petition filed for transfer of the government plot in favour of the petitioner in exchange of Timper land (DL) there has been no agitation as to the shortage of area for the land proposed to be transferred/allotted at Aalo in favour of the petitioner. (h) The record is available that there are several petitions submitted by the petitioner to the government and District Administration by the petitioner that the petitioner has transferred to the BRTF a plot measuring 8176 square meters. (i) As annexed by the petitioner there is a survey report held under the direction of Deputy Commissioner during which both the parties were present. The said survey report of dated 26/06/2007, held in presence of the petitioner and the respondent reflects that the present plot occupied by BRTF measures only 7224 square meters (1.78 acres) which fall short of 952 squares meters as against an areas of 8176 as transferred by the parties to the BRTF. 8. Thereafter, the ld. Court below had confirmed the title; possession, occupation, and interest in respect of Timper land (D/L) in favour of the respondent vide judgment and order, dated 29.11.2012. 9. Now, in view of order 41 and Rule 31 of Order 41 CPC, and in view of submissions of the ld. Advocates of both the parties the points for determination by this court are:- (i) Whether the plaintiff/appellant has right, title and interest over the unused part of Timper land? (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo in contravention of the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition No. WP(C) No. 82(AP)/2002, vide order dated 17.12.2004, wrongly transferred the case to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar? (iii) Whether the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar has committed any illegality by registering the petition of the plaintiff/appellant as Title Suit in spite of absence of any plaint, while the plaintiff/appellant has only filed an application for reverting of vacant/unused area at Timper Land and? (iv) Whether the BRTF was not a necessary party to the issues of the appellant as the plaintiff/appellant has issues only with the Government for reversion of unused area of Timper land? (v) Whether the ld. Additional District Judge, Basar has rightly decided all the issues and arrived at a just finding? Decision and reasons thereof:- Points No. (i) & (iv) 10. (v) Whether the ld. Additional District Judge, Basar has rightly decided all the issues and arrived at a just finding? Decision and reasons thereof:- Points No. (i) & (iv) 10. Being inter-related these two points are taken up together for decision. 11. It is apparent from the evidence on the record that the plaintiff/appellant, Shri Nyaki Bagra has purchased the Timper Land, measuring 8176 Sqr. Mtr. situated at Rigo Village from Lt. Dugre Ado paying a sum of Rs. 1100 (Rupees eleven hundred) in the year 1979. It is also apparent that he entered into an agreement with Dugre Ado to that effect on 14.01.1979. While the appellant purchased the Timper Land, part of the same was under the possession of Officer Commandant, 44 BRTF, Aalo, the respondent in the present appeal. Having purchased the Timper land from Lt. Dugre Ado, the appellant decided to construct his own residence there and he approached the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo on 14.09.1979, to vacate the Timper land by the respondent. 12. It is further apparent from the evidence on the record that the respondent continued to be in possession of the said plot of land, till 1981. During pendency of the of the petition of the plaintiff/appellant, before the Deputy Commissioner, late Dugre Ado sold the land again to BRTF through Deputy Commissioner on 24/11/1981, on consideration of a sum of Rs. 4000/(Rupees four thousand) only. And further he had issued no objection to transfer of the ownership of the plot land to the Government. Pursuant to such transfer, the government has allotted a plot of land measuring 68 x 45 meters at Gumin Nagar in lieu of Timper land to Dugre Ado on 31.10.81. Thereafter, the plaintiff/appellant approached late Dugre Ado for a settlement and pursuant to that settlement late Dugre Ado took back the DL from the plaintiff/appellant on 19.02.1983, on the condition that late Dugre Ado will do away his government allotted land at Gumin Nagar Aalo, measuring an area of 68 meter x 45 meter (3060 Sqr. Meter) to the plaintiff/appellant, in lieu of his Timper Land and this settlement was done in presence of one witness, namely Shri Sokto Gamlin and on the condition that either party will not agitate/dispute the settlement exchange in what so ever manner. An agreement, being PEX-4, dated 19.02.1983, is also executed to this effect by both of them. Meter) to the plaintiff/appellant, in lieu of his Timper Land and this settlement was done in presence of one witness, namely Shri Sokto Gamlin and on the condition that either party will not agitate/dispute the settlement exchange in what so ever manner. An agreement, being PEX-4, dated 19.02.1983, is also executed to this effect by both of them. Pursuant to such settlement the plaintiff/appellant and Dugre Ado jointly made a representation, vide PEX-5, to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo on 29.06.1984, for transfer of the allotted land at Gumin Nagar, Aalo to the plaintiff/appellant. 13. It is also apparent from the evidence on the record that the land (D/L) is being occupied by BRTF since 1962, prior to the purchased by petitioner in 1979. Since the plaintiff/appellant and late Dugre Ado entered into an agreement on 19/02/1983, with an unqualified acceptance that the plot of land allotted to Dugre Ado at Aalo Town, at Gumin Nagar, measuring an area 68 x 45 square meters (3060 sqr. meters), be transferred to the petitioner in lieu of the DL, the same goes to show that the BRTF occupied plot has reverted back to the original owner late Dugre Ado. 14. Further, it is apparent that late Dugre Ado, after exchanging his government allotted plot with the plaintiff/appellant, received final payment of compensation from the respondent BRTF through the Deputy Commissioner subsequent to which an area measuring 2.32 acres was allotted to the 44 BRTF by the Deputy Commissioner. 15. Thus, it becomes apparent that the respondent-BRTF is in occupation of the Timper land since 1962 and also it has purchased the same from late Dugre Ado in the year on 24/11/1981, for a consideration of Rs. 4000/(Rupees four thousand) only. 16. The plaintiff/appellant has asked the Deputy Commissioner to revert the unused part of Timper land to him. Since the entire plot of Timper land is purchased by the respondent BRTF, then to the considered opinion of this court the respondent BRTF is a necessary party to the proceeding. The Deputy Commissioner has already allotted the Timper land to the respondent/BRTF. This being the position, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that his issue was with the government only, is devoid of substance. The Deputy Commissioner has already allotted the Timper land to the respondent/BRTF. This being the position, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that his issue was with the government only, is devoid of substance. In view of agreement, being PEX-4, dated 19.02.1983, between the plaintiff/appellant and Dugre Ado and with an unqualified acceptance that the plot of land allotted to Dugre Ado at Aalo Town, at Gumin Nagar, measuring an area 68 x 45 square meters (3060 sqr. meters), be transferred to the petitioner in lieu of the DL, and on the condition that either party will not agitate/dispute the settlement exchange in what so ever manner, the plaintiff/appellant has no right, title and interest over the Timper land. Having accepted the land at Gumin Nagar, in lieu of the Timper land, with the condition of not to agitate/dispute the settlement exchange in what so ever manner, the plaintiff/appellant is being stopped by operation of the law of estoppels from claiming any right, title and interest over the same. In holding so this court derived authority from the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions:- (i) In R.N. Gosain Vs. Yaspal Dhir, : (1992) 4 SCC 683 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- "Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid any thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage". According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, "after taking an advantage under an order (for example for the payment of costs) a party may be precluded from saying that it is invalid and asking to set it aside". (para 1508). (ii) In Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore Vs. Honor Resources (International) Company Ltd.: (2011)10 SCC 420 , in paragraph No. 31 to 35, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a party that received a particular sum as full and final settlement cannot do a complete somersault thereafter. (para 1508). (ii) In Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore Vs. Honor Resources (International) Company Ltd.: (2011)10 SCC 420 , in paragraph No. 31 to 35, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a party that received a particular sum as full and final settlement cannot do a complete somersault thereafter. It is further held therein that a person cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate and that the doctrine of election is based on a rule of estoppel. (iii) In Adani Gas Limited Vs. Union of India and Others, SLP(C) Nos. 28192-28193 of 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a man cannot adopt two inconsistent attitudes towards another: He must elect between them and having elected to adopt one stance, cannot thereafter be permitted to go back and adopt an inconsistent stance. It is further held that the Doctrine of approbate and reprobate is based on the principle of estoppel and an order cannot be partly good and partly bad like the curate's egg. (iv) In Bhagwat Sharan Vs. Purushottam and ors: (2020) 6 SCC 387 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time." It was further held that when the benefits of a particular contract or conveyance or order are knowingly accepted by the party, that party is stopped to deny the validity of such a contract. 17. In the case in hand the plaintiff/appellant has derived benefit from the agreement, being PEX-4, dated 19.02.1983, and acquired the land at Gumin Nagar, in lieu of Timper Land, with the condition that either party will not agitate/dispute the settlement exchange in what so ever manner, and now, he cannot claim the unused portion of Timper Land. Having elected to accept and the agreement-PEX-4, dated 19.02.1983, entered into with Lt. Durge Ado he had forfeited his right to claim any unused portion of Timper land. He cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Thus, the ld. Court below has rightly held that plaintiff/appellant is being stopped by operation of the law of estoppels and also by adverse possession. 18. In view of above discussion and finding, point No. (i) and (iv) has to be decided in affirmative and accordingly the same are decided in favour of the respondent/BRTF. Point No. (ii) 19. Thus, the ld. Court below has rightly held that plaintiff/appellant is being stopped by operation of the law of estoppels and also by adverse possession. 18. In view of above discussion and finding, point No. (i) and (iv) has to be decided in affirmative and accordingly the same are decided in favour of the respondent/BRTF. Point No. (ii) 19. It is not in dispute that while the plaintiff/appellant has file a representation for the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo on 05.02.1992, for recovery of the excess land that was being occupied by BRTF other than the 3060 square meter, that was exchanged with the appellant. Then the EAC (REV), vide letter No. WS/REV-4/96, dated 02.02.1996, asked the respondent to furnish a copy of the Blue Print Sketch Map of the land so that matter could be clarified by the District Administration. But, the BRTF never furnished any such Blue Print to the District Administration. Though the appellant continued to make representation to the Deputy Commissioner, the same failed to yield any result. The plaintiff/appellant also had to make payment of Rs. 16,767, being the annual lease rent of the land with arrear on 12.09.1996. The plaintiff/appellant was aggrieved by the fact that he had to pay a premium of Rs. 16,767/- (Rupees sixteen thousand seven hundred sixty-seven), whereas the Timper land was a private land and no premium was needed to be paid for the said land, and meaning thereby, the allotted land of the appellant was not allotted in exchange of the Timper Land. Hence the appellant made the representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, in November 1996 for returning of unused/unoccupied land of Timper Land, as waste/rejected land at Gumin Nagar was included in the Sketch Map and being encroached by the individuals repeatedly as the same had not been allotted to the appellant despite several representations, but none of the representation failed to yield any result. 20. Then the appellant approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 82 (AP)/2002, and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.12.2004, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to take up the Case of the appellant in the light of representations dated 11.07.1997, and 05.01.2001. 20. Then the appellant approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 82 (AP)/2002, and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.12.2004, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to take up the Case of the appellant in the light of representations dated 11.07.1997, and 05.01.2001. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner finally taken up the matter and after hearing the appellant and the respondent passed an order on 22.06.2007, and directed the Land Management Staff to conduct ground survey and submit report to ascertain availability of any unoccupied, unused portion of Timper Land at Rigo, as the area allotted to the appellant at Aalo, was not commensurate with the area allotted to the respondent. Then the Staff of the Land Management surveyed and verified the land, on 11.07.2007, in presence of the respondent as well as the plaintiff/appellant and while conducting the ground survey the land that out of the total area of the Timper Land, 6214.53 square meters was in the occupation of the BRTF, while 1009.50 square meter was lying vacant. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo, instead of allotting the unused/unoccupied land to the appellant, transferred the matter to the First Tract Court, Basar, wherein a Case No. BSR/CA-70/07 was registered. 21. It is to be mentioned here that in WP(C) No. 71/02(PS), vide order dated 17.12.2004, this court has directed the Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, Along, Arunachal Pradesh to take up the case of the petitioner in the light of the representations dated 11.07.1997 and 05.01.2001 and disposed of the two representation in the light of existing rules and guidelines of the government. It was also directed that while disposing of the aforesaid two representations of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner shall take into consideration of the representation of the private respondents. 22. A bare perusal of the order of this court dated 17.12.2004, in WP(C) No. 71/02(PS), reveals that no such direction was issued by this court to disposed of the representation of the plaintiff/appellant in a particular way. Therefore, by referring the representation of the plaintiff/appellant to the FTC Basar, the Deputy Commissioner has disposed of the representation of the plaintiff/appellant in either way. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner has disposed of the representation in contravention of the direction issued by this court in the WP(C) No. 82(AP)/2002. Therefore, by referring the representation of the plaintiff/appellant to the FTC Basar, the Deputy Commissioner has disposed of the representation of the plaintiff/appellant in either way. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner has disposed of the representation in contravention of the direction issued by this court in the WP(C) No. 82(AP)/2002. The issues raised in the representation of the plaintiff/appellant, involve the complex question of right, title and interest of the parties, over the Timper land and with establishment of the civil court i.e. the court of Additional District Judge, the Deputy Commissioner has transferred the matter to it for adjudication of the complex issues of right, title and interest. Therefore, to the considered opinion of this court no fault can be found with him. Accordingly, this point is decided in negative. Point No. (iii):- 23. The record of the ld. Court below reveals that the deputy Commissioner has transferred the case pending before him for expeditious disposal of the same vide Office Note dated 17.10.2007. The ld. Court below has received the case on 07.11.2007 and registered a case being BSR/CA-70/07, and thereafter, proceeded to decide the issues. Thus, apparently the ld. Court below has not committed any illegality by registering the petition of the plaintiff/appellant for reverting of vacant/unused area at Timper Land, as Title Suit. 24. It is, however, a fact that the plaintiff/appellant has not filed any plaint here in this case. The ld. Court below has treated the petition referred by the Deputy Commissioner to him as plaint and registered it as Title Suit. From the representation of the plaintiff/appellant it becomes apparent that the dispute projected therein is out and out a civil dispute involving right, title and interest over immovable properties and as such the ld. Additional District Judge has apparently not committed any wrong or any illegality, as argued by the plaintiff/appellant, in registering it as Title Suit. Point No. (v):- 25. It is a fact that the ld. Court below has not discussed the evidence on the record issue wise while arriving at the decision. But, it has answered all the issues though not expressly but, impliedly. Point No. (v):- 25. It is a fact that the ld. Court below has not discussed the evidence on the record issue wise while arriving at the decision. But, it has answered all the issues though not expressly but, impliedly. Though it is contended by the plaintiff/appellant that the title of Timper land was not an issue before the Deputy Commissioner, yet I find that the plaintiff/appellant has claimed the unused portion of Timper land as according to him he has right, title and interest over the same. Therefore, the ld. Court below has not committed any mistake in framing the issue and deciding the same in favour of the respondent on the basis of evidence tendered by both the parties. Since the Timper land was in possession of the respondent since 1962, and since the respondent has purchased the same from Dugre Ado by paying a consideration of Rs. 4000/-, and since the plaintiff/appellant has claimed the unused portion of Timper land, the relief so claimed by the plaintiff/appellant is from the respondent only, not from the government. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the plaintiff/appellant that the proceeding should have been between the plaintiff/appellant and the government only. 26. Having considered the points so raised for consideration of this court in the light if facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of submission made by the ld. Advocates of the parties, I find that the ld. Court below has considered all the issues and rightly arrived at a just finding and as such the same requires no interference from this court. I have carefully gone through the case laws (i) Maluk Yomgam Vs. Damli Yomcha & Others (supra) and (ii) Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Others Vs. Director Health Services, Haryana and Others: (supra), referred by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and I find that the ratios laid down therein will not applicable in all force to the facts and circumstances here in this case. Therefore, I skipped detailed discussion on the same for the sake of brevity. While the plaintiff/appellant has not raised any issue regarding the jurisdiction of the ld. Court below and also having gracefully participated in the trial process, now he cannot raise the issue before this court. The law regarding this is well settled. 27. Therefore, I skipped detailed discussion on the same for the sake of brevity. While the plaintiff/appellant has not raised any issue regarding the jurisdiction of the ld. Court below and also having gracefully participated in the trial process, now he cannot raise the issue before this court. The law regarding this is well settled. 27. Having gracefully participated in the trial and adducing evidence as well as advancing argument before the ld. Court below, the plaintiff/appellant cannot now question of the authority of the Deputy Commissioner in transferring the case to the ld. Court below and now he cannot take a plea that he did not file any plaint, before the ld. Court below. 28. In the result, I find that the ld. Court below has rightly decided all the issues and arrived at a just decision which warrants no interference of this court. Thus, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own cost. Send down the record of the ld. Court below with copy of this judgment and order.