JUDGMENT 1. This present secnd appeal has been filed under Sectin 100 f the Cde f Civil Prcedure, 1908, read with rder XLII Rule 1 fr reversing the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 16.07.2018 & 18.07.2018 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senir Divisin, Udaipur, Gmati Tripura in Title Suit N.21 f 2017 and the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2019 and 02.09.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Gmati Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal N.07 f 2018 and thereupn, fr decreeing the suit, filed by the plaintiff-appellants. 2. The facts f the case, in brief, are that the subject matter f the present suit is land measuring 0.07 acre under alltted-khatian N.815, Hal Plt N.1613/2762 situated at Muja - Uttar Chandrapur appertaining t Hal Plt N.1613 f area 0.20 acres, i.e., ttal 0.27 acres described in 'A' schedule f the plaint. The plaintiff-appellants herein asserted that cnsidering their pssessin ver 'A' Schedule land the cmpetent authrity alltted the entire 'A' Schedule land in the names f the plaintiff-appellants herein vide Alltment rder N.40 dated 26-04-1991. Accrdingly, the allttee Khatian N.815 was prepared in their name n 07-08-1992. Subsequently, the cmputerized printed Khatian N.815 was generated in respect f the said alltted land f the plaintiffs. But in the said Khatian, errneusly, in Clumn N.6 the name and father's name f the plaintiff-appellant N.1 was wrngly typed as Sadhan Chandra Dey, S/ Upendra Chandra Dey instead f Sadhan Chandra Chanda, S/ Upendra Chandra Chanda and als the name f plaintiff N.2 as Sefali Dey instead f Sefali Chanda. Accrdingly, the plaintiffs made a prayer befre the Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, Udaipur fr crrectin f the said errr in Clumn N.6 f the cmputerized printed Khatian N.815. The said matter is pending fr dispsal. Accrding t the plaintiffs, in the last part f Nvember 2011 the defendants dispssessed them frm the entire land f Hal Plt N.1613/2762 f an area measuring 0.07 acres which is described as Schedule 'C' in the plaint and which is part f the 'A' schedule land. Since then the defendants have been illegally pssessing Schedule 'C' land by cnstructing dwelling huts and have been residing with their family members. The remaining land f Schedule 'A' f the plaint, i.e., the land f Plt N.1614, an area measuring 0.20 acres is described as Schedule 'B' land in the plaint. Since then the defendants have been illegally pssessing Schedule 'C' land by cnstructing dwelling huts and have been residing with their family members. The remaining land f Schedule 'A' f the plaint, i.e., the land f Plt N.1614, an area measuring 0.20 acres is described as Schedule 'B' land in the plaint. Accrding t the plaintiff-appellants they have been pssessing the Schedule 'B' land as wners t the knwledge f the lcal peple including the present defendants t date. The defendants have illegally pssessed the 'C' Schedule land since the last part f Nvember 2011, and, they need t be evicted. The defendants n 02-06-2017 attempted t dispssess the plaintiffs frm the Schedule 'B' land by cutting mud frm the part f the said land but failed due t resistance put up by the plaintiffs. 3. n the said premises, the plaintiffs prayed fr a decree f declaratin f the right, title, and interest ver Schedule 'A' land alng with a perpetual injunctin restraining the defendants frm entering int the Schedule 'B' land and fr recvery f pssessin f the Schedule 'C' land. 4. n the ther hand, defendants Ns.1 and 2 cntested the suit by filing the written statement. Accrding t the defendants, their father was residing at Uttar Chandrapur frm the year 1979 by purchasing sme lands adjacent t the CS Plt N.1174/1658 which was a khas land measuring 0.07 acres. They cnstructed dwelling huts n 0.07 acre f khas land in the year 1979 and in the lifetime f their father, they als cnstructed a pucca wall with pucca rf with GI sheet rf and a dwelling huse. Accrding t the defendants, the plaintiff Sadhan Chandra Chanda was a Gvernment emplyee and was a resident f Kalaban where he has been residing with his secnd wife Smti. Kiran Chanda. His first wife Smti. Sefali Chanda left him in the year 1990 fr Klkata. Sadhan Chandra Chanda was the permanent resident f Kalaban with Kiran Chanda and he had ther landed prperty at Kalaban. Sadhan Chandra Chanda managed t get alltment rder in his and his first wife, Sefali Chanda's name, in vilatin f the Alltment Rules, 1980. The distance between Nrth Chandrapur and Kalaban is 15 Kms. Sadhan Chandra Chanda was the permanent resident f Kalaban with Kiran Chanda and he had ther landed prperty at Kalaban. Sadhan Chandra Chanda managed t get alltment rder in his and his first wife, Sefali Chanda's name, in vilatin f the Alltment Rules, 1980. The distance between Nrth Chandrapur and Kalaban is 15 Kms. The defendants' father Late Raj Kumar Shil filed a case fr cancellatin f the alltment rder in the year 1992 befre the SDM and Cllectr, Udaipur, and the case was enquired by the Revenue Inspectr as per directin f the SDM and Cllectr, Udaipur. Subsequently, the predecessr f the defendants came t learn that the entire inquiry reprt and the petitin fr cancellatin f the alltment rder were missing frm the ffice f the SDM. In the year 2000, the defendants' father Raj Kumar Shil filed anther petitin fr cancellatin f the alltment rder fr Plt N.1613/2762 f land measuring 0.07 acre befre the Curt f the DM and Cllectr, Suth Tripura District. The petitin was sent fr inquiry t the SDM, Udaipur, and based n the inquiry made by the SDM Udaipur, the ADM and Cllectr registered Case N.13 f 2005 under Sectin 96 f the TLR and LR Act and ntice was issued t Sadhan Chandra Chanda, the secnd party t the prceeding. In the said revenue prceeding it transpired that the land measuring 0.07 acre under RS Plt N.1613/2762 was being pssessed by Raj Kumar Shil. But, the said case recrd was again fund missing frm the ffice f the SDM and Cllectr, Udaipur. Accrding t the defendants, Sadhan Chandra Chanda is a plitically influential persn and he was als cnvicted in a Criminal Case and he managed t remve the case recrd in cnnivance with the staff f the SDM's ffice, Udaipur n tw ccasins. The father f the defendants died in the year 2015 and the answering defendants have been residing in the 'C' Schedule land frm their childhd alng with their parents. Subsequently, after their marriage, they have als been residing in the 'C' schedule land with their family members. Accrding t the defendants, the plaintiffs never pssessed the 'C' Schedule land thugh they managed t get the alltment rder in their name. The plaintiffs tried t enter int the suit land many times but failed. Subsequently, after their marriage, they have als been residing in the 'C' schedule land with their family members. Accrding t the defendants, the plaintiffs never pssessed the 'C' Schedule land thugh they managed t get the alltment rder in their name. The plaintiffs tried t enter int the suit land many times but failed. n the said premises, the defendants prayed fr the dismissal f the suit f the plaintiffs. 5. The trial curt frame the fllwing issues in the suit :- '(i) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest ver the suit land mentined in the Schedule 'A' f the plaint? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have fulfilled all the criterin f the Alltment Rule regarding alltment f suit land in their favur? (iii) Whether the defendants are in wrngful pssessin f the suit land mentined in the Schedule 'C' f the plaint? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled t get a decree as prayed fr alng with any ther relief r reliefs?' 6. In supprt f their case the plaintiffs examined ne witness namely Shri Sadhan Chandra Chanda and adduced the fllwing dcumentary evidence:- riginal alltment rder N.40 dated 26-04-1991 marked as Exhibit-1. Allttee Khatian N.815 f Muja - Uttar Chandrapur standing in the name f the plaintiffs marked as Exhibit-2 (S). RS Map f Muja - Uttar Chandrapur relating t suit plts marked as Exhibit-3. 7. n the ther side, the defendants examined three witnesses namely- D.W.1 - Shri Bind Shil, D.W.2 - Shri Pradip Das, and D.W.3 - Shri Ratan Shil, and adduced the fllwing dcuments:- Certified cpy f Revenue Case N.13 f 2005 in cnnectin with Cancellatin f Alltment rder by the SDM, Udaipur dated 10-03-2006 marked as Exhibit- A. Field Enquiry Reprt f Raj Kumar Shil in cnnectin with reference N.1003 dated 21-10-2005 marked as Exhibit-B (S). Prayer fr cancellatin f alltment recrd f seven decimal f land pertaining t Dag N.1613/2762 f Khatian N.815 marked as Exhibit- C. Certified cpy f rdersheet in Revenue Case N.13 f 2005 in 2 sheets marked as Exhibits-D/1 and D/2. Petitin by Raj Kumar Shil t the SDM, Udaipur marked as Exhibit-E. 8. After hearing bth sides, the learned Civil Judge, Senir Divisin, Udaipur, Gmati Tripura passed the Judgment and Decree dated 16.07.2018 and 18.07.2018, thereby dismissing the suit. 9. Petitin by Raj Kumar Shil t the SDM, Udaipur marked as Exhibit-E. 8. After hearing bth sides, the learned Civil Judge, Senir Divisin, Udaipur, Gmati Tripura passed the Judgment and Decree dated 16.07.2018 and 18.07.2018, thereby dismissing the suit. 9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and decree dated 16.07.2018 and 18.07.2018 respectively, passed in T.S.21 f 2017, the plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal marked as Title Appeal N.07 f 2018 befre the learned District Judge, Udaipur, Gmati Tripura. After hearing bth the side, the learned District Judge passed the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.2019 & 02.09.2019 respectively, thereby dismissing the appeal in the fllwing terms:- 'In the result, the appeal I dismissed being devid f merit. Judgment dated 16.07.2018 and decree date 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Divisin), Curt N.1, Udaipur in Title Suit N.21 f 2017 is hereby upheld..' 10. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-appellants herein has preferred this instant secnd appeal and prayed fr the fllwing reliefs:- 'i) Admit the secnd appeal; ii) Issue ntice upn the Defendant-Respndent; iii) Call fr the recrds, appertaining t this Secnd Appeal; iv) After hearing, allw this Secnd Appeal by reversing the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 16.08.2018 & 18.07.2018 respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senir Divisin, Udaipur, Gmati Tripura in Title Suit N.21 f 2017, & the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 30.08.2019 & 02.09.2019 respectively, passed by the learned District, Judge, Gmati Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal N.07 f 2018, and thereupn, fr decreeing the suit, thereby declaring the right, title & interest f the plaintiffs ver the suit land, and directly fr recvery f pssessin; v) The Hn'ble High Curt may als pass any further rder(s) as may deem fit and prper;' 11. This present secnd appeal has been admitted n 01.09.2020 and the fllwing substantial questins f law were frmed:- '(i) Whether the rder f alltment f land issued under Sectin 14 f the TLR & LR Act, 1960 read with Rules 3 and 6 f the TLR & LR Act(Alltment f land) Rules, 1980 can cnstitute the subject matter f adjudicatin in a civil suit. In view f the statutry bar, cntained in Sectin 44 and 188 f the TLR & LR Act, 1960? In view f the statutry bar, cntained in Sectin 44 and 188 f the TLR & LR Act, 1960? (ii) Whether in the absence f a determinatin as t the validity f the rder f alltment, by the alltting authrity in the right f alltee t cntinue the pssessin f the alltted land can be interfered with by a Civil Curt? (iii) Whether the validity f the rder f alltment can be examined, after elapse f a perid f three years frm the date f such alltment, in view f the settled law in this regard? (iv) Whether in view f this statutry prescriptins, cntained in Sectins 35 and 74 f the Evidence Act, 1872, the enquiry reprts(Exbt-C) adduced by the defendants were admissible in evidence, until and unless, the Enquiring Authrities are examined in cnnectin therewith? (v) Any ther substantial questin f law urged at the time f hearing f the present secnd appeal.' 12. Heard Mr. S.K. Deb, learned Sr. cunsel assisted by Mr. A. Dey, learned cunsel appearing fr the appellants as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. cunsel assisted by Mr. S. Das, learned cunsel appearing fr the respndents. 13. Mr. S.K. Deb, learned Sr. cunsel assisted by Mr. A. Dey, learned cunsel appearing fr the plaintiff-appellants herein submitted that Curts belw have cmmitted an errr f law in appreciating that lng and cntinuus pssessin des nt create title. n the ther hand, the plaintiffs btained the suit land by way f alltment, and have acquired the right, title, and interest ver the same. Hence they were entitled t recvery f pssessin f 'C' schedule f land, by evicting the defendants therefrm. The Curts belw have cmmitted an errr in appreciating that a Civil Curt has n jurisdictin, t determine as t whether the plaintiffs have fulfilled all the criteria f the Alltment Rules, regarding alltment f the suit land in their favur inasmuch as these matters pertain t the functining f the Revenue Authrities, under the prvisins f the Tripura Land Revenue & Lands Refrms Act, 1960. The cmpetent authrities had rightly alltted the suit land in favur f the plaintiffs, and the alltment rder issued in cnnectin therewith had nt been canceled till date by the said authrity. As such, it is evidently clear that the said alltment rder hlds gd, and the Civil Curt had n jurisdictin t interfere with the same. The cmpetent authrities had rightly alltted the suit land in favur f the plaintiffs, and the alltment rder issued in cnnectin therewith had nt been canceled till date by the said authrity. As such, it is evidently clear that the said alltment rder hlds gd, and the Civil Curt had n jurisdictin t interfere with the same. The inquiry reprt i.e. Exbt-C des nt prve the pssessin f the predecessr f the defendants, prir t the date f the said inquiry. The Curt belw cmmitted an errr in appreciating that an alltment rder can be canceled by the cmpetent authrity, within 3(three)years frm the date f alltment, and nt psterir theret. In the written statement, the defendants have admitted that the alltment rder was issued, in favur f the plaintiffs, which very clearly and unambiguusly manifests that the suit land was duly alltted, in favur f the plaintiffs, by the cmpetent authrity. Stating thus, learned Sr. cunsel prayed t allw this instant appeal. 14. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. cunsel assisted by Mr. S. Das, learned cunsel appears fr the respndents submits that suit is nt maintainable fr nn-jinder f parties. The plaintiff-appellants herein have nt fulfilled the requirement f Tripura Land Revenue and Land Refrms (alltment f lands) Rule 1980. The plaintiff-appellants did never pssess the 'C' schedule f land measuring 0.07 acres. The father f the answering defendant, Raj Kumar Shil had been pssessing the 'C' schedule land frm the year 1979 A.D. S the questin f dispssessin by the defendants des nt arise. Paragraph- 5 f the plaint is ttally false. The defendants never dispssessed the plaintiff frm the 'C' scheduled land. As the plaintiffs were nt in pssessin at the time f alleged alltment r prir t r after in the suit land, s the questin f dispssessin des nt arise. The plaintiffs are ut f pssessin f the 'A' schedule land and as per TLR & LR(Alltment f Land) Rules 1980, the plaintiffs have n right, title, and interest in the suit land. The plaintiff- Sadhan Chandra Chanda managed t get an alltment rder in his name and in the name f his 1st wife Sefali Chanda vilating the Alltment Rules, 1980. The plaintiffs never pssessed the 'C' schedule land in their name. The plaintiffs tried t enter int the suit land many times but failed. The plaintiff- Sadhan Chandra Chanda managed t get an alltment rder in his name and in the name f his 1st wife Sefali Chanda vilating the Alltment Rules, 1980. The plaintiffs never pssessed the 'C' schedule land in their name. The plaintiffs tried t enter int the suit land many times but failed. The answering defendants and their father nw deceased acquired pssessry right, title, interest, and pssessin ver the 'C' scheduled land after pssessing the same fr the last 38 years. 15. Heard bth sides and perused the evidence n recrd. 16. This instant appeal is filed fr declaratin f right, title, interest, and recvery f pssessin. It becmes the prima facie duty f the plaintiff-appellants herein t claim right and title. The plaintiff-appellants have t establish the right accrued in accrdance with the law. In s far as the plaintiff-appellants are cncerned, the plaintiffs have claimed the title ver the prperty by virtue f the alltment rder, but, they have nt chsen t array the revenue fficials as party defendants and als have nt chsen t summn them as witnesses t speak n the validity f the alltment rder. If the plaintiffs are having a valid alltment in their favur, and when there is n dispute n the said alltment and further if there is n claim n the said alltment, seeking f declaratin f title n the suit land was nt warranted. 17. This Curt feels that the plaintiff-appellants have nt apprached this Curt with clean hands. The plaintiff-appellants have nt prved their case beynd reasnable dubt t say that the plaintiff-appellants were in pssessin f the land and were dispssessed and, therefre, seeking relief fr recvery f pssessin frm the defendants. Under whatever authrity, the defendant-respndents are in pssessin, admittedly, the father f the defendants has claimed that he purchased the impugned prperty way back in the year 1979 and thereafter cnstructed the huse. They are staying in the said huse and after the demise f their father, his grwn-up children are cntinuing their pssessin upn the said dwelling huse which is cnstructed n their land in an extent f 0.07 acres. They are staying in the said huse and after the demise f their father, his grwn-up children are cntinuing their pssessin upn the said dwelling huse which is cnstructed n their land in an extent f 0.07 acres. The plaintiff-appellants have nt placed any evidence n recrd t shw n which date, the defendant-respndents have dispssessed them and in such case, any cmplaint t the plice statin r any ntice t that effect t shw that n that particular date they were dispssessed. The plaintiff-appellants have als nt placed any evidence befre the Curt t shw that they were in lawful pssessin and in the enjyment f the prperty under the capacity f the lawful wner. Thugh there are several cnditins t be fllwed by the plaintiff-appellants in the rder f alltment, it is nt fr this Curt t g int the issues as t whether the land is put t use r nt fr the purpse the alltment was made, whether the installment amunt as per the alltment is paid r nt etc. But, it is necessary fr the plaintiff-appellants t get the Gvernment authrities examined befre the Curt t say that the alltment made in their favur is valid and subsisting and the same is nt canceled and the plaintiff-appellants were the lawful wner. 18. Further as per Rules 6 f the said TLR & LR(Alltment f Land) Rules, 1980, in alltting land fr the cnstructin f dwelling huse, the Cllectr shall fllw the fllwing rder f preference namely :- (i) jhumia, (ii) a landless agricultural wrker r an artisan nt wning any huse r site fr a huse (iii) an individual evicted under sectin 15 wh des nt cme in any f the categries mentined in the freging clauses and des nt wn any huse r site fr a huse and (iv) any ther persn nt wning any huse r site fr a huse r wh intends t build the huse fr persnal habitatin. But in the instant case, there is nthing n recrd t shw that the plaintiff-appellants fall in any f the afresaid categries s as t get the alltment f the suit land. Situated thus, this Curt is f the view that the Curts belw have rightly held that the alltment rder in favur f the plaintiffs were nt legally tenable and thus liable t be set aside. 19. Situated thus, this Curt is f the view that the Curts belw have rightly held that the alltment rder in favur f the plaintiffs were nt legally tenable and thus liable t be set aside. 19. Further n perusal f the Exbt-1, i.e. the alltment rder dated 26.04.1991, it appears that there is stipulated in the rder requiring the alltee t make payment f Rs.13,500/- as alltee Najrana. But there is nthing n recrd t shw whether the plaintiff-appellants have made the said payment. 20. Anther striking aspect f the case is that thugh the alleged wife f plaintiff N.1 namely Smt. Shefali Chanda was a c-allttee in respect f the suit land, but, she has nt turned up t depse in the case and there is als n explanatin frm the side f the husband allttee in this regard. That being the psitin f the case, plaintiff-appellants herein suffers frm material lacuna in this regard, in the sense that, had the lady been present in the trial, the defendants wuld have gt a reasnable pprtunity t crss-examine her s as t help the Curt t adjudicate the matter mre cmprehensively. 21. In view f the abve discussins and bservatins made, this Curt is f the pinin that the judgment and decree passed by the lwer Curts dated 16.07.2018 & 18.07.2018 and 30.08.2019 & 02.09.2019 respectively in T.S. N.21 f 2017 and T.A N.07 f 2018 are just and prper and needs n interference. Accrdingly, the cncurrent finding is affirmed and this instant secnd appeal stands dismissed. 22. Cnsequently, pending applicatin(s), if any, als stand clsed. Send back the LCRs.