JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in T.S. 162 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1. 2. The facts in brief in this instant appeal is that the appellant herein is the owner of land measuring 0.28 acres within District-West Tripura, P.S.- Airport, Tehsil- Lankamura, Mouja-Singerbil, Sub-Division-Mohanpur, Revenue Circle-Mohanpur, situated at Singerbil under Touji No.1003, Khatian No.1515 & R.S. Khatian No.525, Old C.S. Plot No.2354 present C.S. Plot No.4048. The said property has been inherited by the appellant. The said land is also a vacant plain land classified as a 'tilla' now under the possession of respondent Nos.1 to 6. 3. The appellant on 20.12.2013 came to know that his land has been encroached on by the respondents Nos.1 to 6. Accordingly, he made enquires and collected copies regarding the status of the land through the RTI Act. The appellant also found that another 2(two) gandas of his land adjacent to the suit land has been acquired by respondent Nos.1 to 6 through respondent Nos.7 to 8. The appellant was absent from his land for a long period because his wife was serving under the Government of Tripura in Amarpur. 4. On collecting the information, the appellant found that respondents Nos.1 to 6 made an endeavour to have the mutation in their favour but the collector rejected such prayer. But, the possession has been directed to be shown in the mutation record. The appellant thereafter served a statutory demand notice to vacate the land or to acquire the land altogether with compensation for use of the land. The said demand notice was not replied to. The appellant thereafter approached the Civil Court for relief as claimed in the statutory demand notice. 5. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed a written statement denying the claim of the appellant. In the written statement it has been stated that the suit is barred by limitation and also claimed adverse possession. 6. The respondent Nos.7 to 8 also filed a written statement. In their written statement they partly accepted the contention of the appellant regarding the records. 7. The learned Court below after taking evidence from the parties dismissed the suit. 8. 6. The respondent Nos.7 to 8 also filed a written statement. In their written statement they partly accepted the contention of the appellant regarding the records. 7. The learned Court below after taking evidence from the parties dismissed the suit. 8. Being aggrieved by the dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019, the appellants preferred the instant appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'I. Admit the petition; II. Call for the records; III. Issue notice; IV. After hearing both the parties be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in T.S.162 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1;' 9. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mrs. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for respondents-Airport Authority of India, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents No.7 & 8 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondent-Union of India. 10. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below while deciding the issue Nos.1 & 2 held that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants have been able to prove their defence by way of adverse possession which is absolutely perverse. The learned Court below while relying on the mutation case record and its orders miserably failed to understand the amplitude of adverse possession. The learned Court below failed to appreciate Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and, therefore, adverse inference has been drawn which is required to be re-appreciated. The learned Court below failed to appreciate Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Court below failed to appreciate that a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is the absolute owner of the territory and has no plea of defence on adverse possession. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pressed into service Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 titled as Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors., dated 08.01.2020. 11. Mr. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Airport Airport Authority of India submitted that the present suit is barred by the laws of limitation, waiver, and estoppels. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors., dated 08.01.2020. 11. Mr. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Airport Airport Authority of India submitted that the present suit is barred by the laws of limitation, waiver, and estoppels. The appellant's right, title, and interest, if any over the suit land has been extinguished by the efflux of time as respondents are in possession of suit land for more than 60 years denying the right, title, and interest of the recorded owner, the predecessor of the plaintiff. The instant plaint is defective and in the plaint, there is no description of the suit land. On this ground alone the plaint is liable to be rejected in the 'limine'. There is no schedule of the suit land and for this reason, the instant suit is not maintainable. The respondent-Airport Authority of India has acquired the title over the land recorded under present plot No.4048 by dint of uninterrupted possession which has been hostile to the right, title interest of the recorder owner. 12. Mr. KC. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 & 8 submitted that the suit is barred by law of limitation and the suit is not properly valued and hence liable to be dismissed. 13. Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asst. S.G. also appears for respondent-Union of India. 14. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that it is not right on the part of the respondents herein to acquire the property of a citizen depriving him of his legitimate right on technical reasons. The ultimate justice herein in our considered opinion would be to award fair compensation to the appellant herein. Depriving the appellant herein, on the technical ground, cannot override Article 300A of the Constitution of India, wherein, the right to property of the citizen is protected under the Constitution. 15. Hence, with the above observation and direction, the instant first appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 11.02.2019 passed in T.S. 162 of 2018 is set aside to the extent of holding that the claim of the appellant is barred by limitation. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for deciding the matter on merits without going into the issue of limitation. 16. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stands closed. Send down the LCRs.