JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 39/2014, whereby suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and also the Judgment & Order dated 04.08.2022 passed in Title Appeal No. 02/2017 by the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi affirming the Judgment and Decree of the Court of first instance and thus dismissed the appeal.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration of their ownership over Schedule-II land prior to the acquisition of the said land by the defendant No. 3, the State and for a declaration that the order passed on 16.07.2014 by the defendant No. 2 i.e. the Additional District Magistrate, Hailakandi is void and also for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation and zirat for acquisition of Scheduled-II land in total exclusion to others including the defendant No. 1.

4. The plaintiffs case:

The basic pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that

I. The plaintiffs purchased the Schedule-II land within Schedule-I land through a registered sale deed being No. 1131 dated 14.12.1988 and they were in possession since the date of purchase.

II. Thereafter, on 19.05.2010, a notice for acquisition of Schedule-II land was issued by the competent authority of Ministry of Surface Transport and Highways. Such notice was issued in the name of the plaintiffs.

III. Thereafter, on 08.12.2011, another notice was served upon the plaintiffs pertaining to one Misc. Case No. 15/2011 seeking objection. Said Misc. Case was filed by the defendant No. 1, raising objection to payment of compensation to the plaintiffs.

IV. Thereafter, an order was passed by one Additional District Magistrate allowing the entire compensation in favour of the plaintiffs.

V. Subsequently, by the order dated 16.07.2014, another Additional District Magistrate, Hailakandi has cancelled the earlier order without hearing the plaintiffs.

VI. Accordingly, the aforesaid suit was filed.

5. The defendant No. 1 took a stand that the plaintiffs cannot acquire right title and interest over the suit land acquired by the State on the basis of the sale deed dated 14.12.1988 executed by one Ram Nath Baroi and others who had no right title over the acquired land in question and also took a stand that the plaintiffs were tenant under their predecessor-in-interest and therefore, the Additional District Magistrate, Hailakanding has rightly decided and apportioned the compensation giving 60% to the defendant No. 1 and 40% to the plaintiffs as tenant.

6. The plaintiffs examined himself as PW-1 and defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW-1. The plaintiffs exhibited the sale deed as Exhibit-1 and the Patta of the land was exhibited by the defendant No. 1 as Exhibit-A, the Jamabandi copy was exhibited as Exhibit-B and the notice for compensation was exhibited as Exhibit-C.

7. Though the official defendants i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 5 filed written statement raising certain objection for non issuance of notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC, 1908 and tenancy, however, no evidence has been laid in proof of such pleadings.

8. The learned Court below framed as many as six issues which are quoted herein below:-

I. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

II. Whether the suit is maintainable in present form?

III. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land by virtue of purchase having right, title and interest?

IV. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for full compensation?

V. Whether the defendants No.2/3 have party apportioned the compensation amongst rightly to the extent of 60:40?

VI. To what relief or relief(s) parties are entitled to?”

9. Decision of the learned trial Court below:

The learned trial Court below after appreciating the pleadings and evidence available on record came to the following findings:-

I. The plaintiffs purchased the suit Schedule-II land by Exhibit-1 i.e. registered sale d