Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Techi Menia W/o Techi Mania Tara – Petitioner
Versus
Taba Takar S/o Shri Taba Teshi – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 5 of 2023
Decided On : 11-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Muk Pertin.
For the Respondent: Khoda Tama.
The court emphasized the importance of ownership, validity of land documents, and the jurisdiction of the civil court under the Arunachal Pradesh Land Settlement and Records Act, 2000.
Headnote:
LPC - Land Dispute - Arunachal Pradesh Land Settlement and Records Act, 2000, Section 95 - The court discussed the ownership of the land, the validity of the LPC issued, and the transfer of title of the immovable property. It also addressed the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 95 of the Arunachal Pradesh Land Settlement and Records Act, 2000.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed inheritance of the land and applied for LPC. A compromise settlement was reached, but later the plaintiff challenged the LPC issued to the defendant, leading to a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the LPC issued to the defendant as inoperative and confirming the plaintiff's right, title, and interest over the land.
Issues: Ownership of the land, validity of the LPC, transfer of title, and jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 95 of the Arunachal Pradesh Land Settlement and Records Act, 2000.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff had inherited the land, the LPC issued to the defendant was inoperative, and the civil court's jurisdiction was not ousted when a declaration was sought for.
Final Decision: The second appeal was not admitted for hearing and was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. T.Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. The present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2023 passed in Title Suit No. 19/2017 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Yupia, whereby, suit preferred by the respondent was decreed by declaring right, title, and interest over the suit and declaring that the LPC dated 21.05.2012 issued in favour of the appellant/defendant was void and inoperative. The further challenge is Judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023 passed in Title Appeal No. 01/2023 whereby, the Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2023 passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by dismissing the first appeal preferred by the appellant defendant.
3. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming that he has inherited the suit land measuring 26888 sq. mtrs from his late father. The plaintiff applied for LPC and in the LPC, land was reduced by giving certain land for approach road. The defendant is a neighbour and his land was adjacent to the western boundary and the defendant purchased the land from one Taba Tath. The Extra Assistant Commissioner, Naharlagun recommended for issuance of LPC to the plaintiff, however, the defendant raised some objection and after some litigation, an agreement was entered between the defendant, her husband, plaintiff and the other necessary parties. Compromise settlement was arrived and accordingly, an agreement was executed on 26.07.2012 and in terms of the said compromise, the plaintiff paid Rs. 8 lakhs to the defendant and the defendant surrendered her LPC along with the sketch map to the plaintiff.
4. Subsequently, on the representation of the plaintiff, the Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 26.09.2012 suspended the LPC of the defendant and directed the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Naharlagun for fresh consideration of LPC in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant challenged the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner before this Court by filing writ petition, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge and though an appeal was preferred by the defendant before the Hon’ble Division Bench, the same was also dismissed. Subsequently, the LPC of the defendant was directed to be restored by the Deputy Commissioner and on a writ petition being filed by the plaintiff, this Court directed the parties to appear before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner restored the LPC of the defendant with an observation that the parties should approached competent Court for declaration of the title of the land. Accordingly, suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest and a declaration that LPC issued in favour of the plaintiff is inoperative.
5. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff owned a plot of land adjutant to his land and it was pleaded that there was no road to go inside the land of the plaintiff and defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff borrowed an amount 5 Lakhs @ of 5% per month from one Balo Mukh (DW-4) for spending of Rs. 2.50 lakhs on linking road and remaining money to repay his wife’s loan. According to the defendant, the plaintiff requested the defendant to stand as guarantor to such loan and it was also averred that plaintiff told the defendant that in the event of his failure to repay the loan to DW-4, the plaintiff will give the land to the defendant. According to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to repay the loan to said Balo Mukh and accordingly, the defendant repaid the loan by paying an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs and thereafter, she applied for LPC and accordingly, the LPC was issued to her after following due process of law.
6. The learned trial Court below framed as many as six issues and after appreciation on evidence and pleadings arrived at th
