JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned Government advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants preferred Title Suit No.19/1994 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 Hailakandi against the respondent state for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land covered under encroachment Case No.1/1992-93 and permanent injunction restraining the respondent/state from evicting the plaintiffs/appellants. It is the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that they were the owners of 32Bs of land covered by 2nd RS patta No.2 Dag No.2, 4, 5 of Boijayantipur Mouza Part-1, Hailakandi which was washed away by the river Katakhal the said land reappeared. The predecessors of the plaintiffs/appellants had been possessing the suit land continuously by constructing dwelling house etc. and acquired right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiffs/appellants prayed for settlement of the suit land in their respective names but the defendants/respondents instead of granting settlement, carved out new 2nd R.S. Patta No. 329/331/332 and new dag No.6/321 and started encroachment Case No.1/1992-93 and issued notice under Rule 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations on 16th July, 1992 directing them to vacate the land and threatened to demolish the structures. It is also pleaded that the defendants/respondents realized touzi bahi revenue from them. Apprehending demolition of house and standing crops, plaintiffs/appellants filed the present suit with the prayers hereinabove stated.

3. The defendants/respondents contested the suit by filing written statement thereby raising the plea of non maintainability of the suit inasmuch as, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and further denied the long continuous possession of the plaintiffs/appellants or realization of touzi revenue from them. It is the defence of the defendants/respondents that the plaintiffs/appellants are habitual encroachers of the suit land and it was further pleaded that they were evicted in encroachment Case No.5/1958-59 from the suit land under Dag No.6/320 and the appeal No.52/1958-59 against the said encroachment case was rejected on 26.12.1960 by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar. Subsequent to that, another re-encroachment Case No.15/1964-65 was started against the plaintiffs/appellants and their ejectment was ordered on 13.11.1964 and the subsequent appeal was also rejected on 28.11.1964. Thereafter, the SDO, Hailakandi reserved 11B 18K 4C's of land under Dag No.6/321 for grazing ground and 2 Bigha 1 Chataks of land which was kept reserved as the "gobat". Subsequent thereto demarcation pillars were raised. Even after such demarcation, the plaintiffs/appellants preferred appeal No.4/1979-80 which was also rejected. Thereafter the plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.18/1998 in the court of Munsiff No.1, Hailakandi which was dismissed for default. Thereafter, Mudras Ali and others applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar for giving effect to the order of the Revenue court. Objection was raised by the plaintiffs which was rejected by the ADC, Hailakandi and thereafter encroachment Case No.1/1992-93 was started. It was urged before the learned trial court that the plaintiffs/appellants have filed the suit misleading the actual facts and as such the defendants/respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues.

"1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

2. Is the suit maintainable?

3. Is the suit bad for multifarious-ness?

4. Is the suit barred under section 154 of A.L.L.R.?

5. Is the suit bad for non compliance of notice under section 80, CPC?

6. Is the suit undervalued?

7. Whether the plaintiffs have exclusive possession and right over the suit land?

8. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiffs ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document