Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Malasri Nandi, J.
Sri Biswajit Dutta, S/o Sri Bidhu Dutta – Petitioner
Versus
On The Death of Sri Lengru Rajgorh His Legal Heir Sri Raj Rajgorh(Son) and ors – Respondents
RSA/237/2017
Decided On : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D Mazumdar, Mr. S Biswas,Ms.J Kakoti
For the Respondent: Mr. B Chakravarty, Mr.A K Bora, Mr.G C Phukan, Mr. U Das
Possession of government land without legal settlement does not confer rights; mere payment of revenue is insufficient for title.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Appeal against dismissal of title suit - The appellant claimed possessory rights over government land, asserting continuous possession since 2007 and regular payment of land revenue. The trial court dismissed the suit, stating no legal title was established. The appellate court affirmed this, noting lack of evidence for settlement or lease. (Paras 5, 6, 22)
(B) Substantial Question of Law - The appeal raised the question of whether the lower courts' decisions were perverse due to non-consideration of evidence regarding land classification. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Legal Principles - The court reiterated that mere payment of revenue does not confer title over government land, and possessory rights cannot be claimed without legal settlement. (Paras 21, 24)
(D) Findings of Court - The courts below found no legal basis for the appellant's claim, affirming that possession was permissive and did not confer rights. (Paras 22, 26) (E) Issues - The main issue was whether the lower courts erred in their findings regarding the nature of the land and the appellant's possessory rights. (Paras 7, 8) (F) Ratio Decidendi - The court held that the appellant's claim lacked legal foundation, as possession of government land without settlement does not confer rights. (Paras 21, 24) (G) Result - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MALASRI NANDI, J.
Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.
2. The appellant as plaintiff has preferred this appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter CPC) against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in T.A No. 4/2016 affirming the judgment and order dated 18.01.2016, passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Tinsukia in T.S No.47/2014.
3. The appellant being the plaintiff filed a title suit before the Court of Munsiff, Tinsukia vide T.S No.47/2014. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the plaintiff is in absolute possession in respect of 2 Bighas 2 Kathas of land covered by Dag No.109 and 110 of Touzi Patta No.43 situated at Monkhuli Gaon, Mouza- Tipling since 2007 and he was having his cultivation over the said land. He used to pay land revenue regularly for the said land. The respondents/defendants are his neighbors and they tried to disturb his peaceful possession over the said land.
4. On 22.04.2014, at around 2 PM, the respondents/defendants armed with weapons like spears, daos, etc. entered into the suit land and started destroying the bamboo fencing erected thereon. When the appellant raised objection over such nuisance, the defendants attacked him by uttering filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. Subsequently, at the intervention of Police of Bordubi P.S, the defendants were not successful in their attempts and left the suit land. It is also the case of the plaintiff/appellant that the defendants had never been in possession of the suit land prior to trespass and he has been in continuous possession over the said land.
5. After examination of the witnesses of both sides and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court dismissed the title suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that – “ the suit land is a government land and the suit land is under Touzi Patta No.43 which makes it evident that the appellant used to pay “bedakhali jorimond” for the same. The case record does not reveal anywhere that there was any settlement in favour of the plaintiff. Moreover, payment of Touzi revenue cannot confer any title to anybody over any plot of land.”
6. Against the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Tinsukia, vide T.A No.04/2016. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the ground which is reproduced as follows –
“ In our suit at hand, it does not reveal that any settlement has been made in favour of the plaintiff so as to enter his name in the record of rights. Neither is there any lease granted by the Deputy Commissioner to the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. Entry of the name in the touzi register is not sufficient to hold that lease has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner to the plaintiff and neither does it amount to entry of name in the records of right, so as to create any right in favour of the plaintiff to retain possession of the land….”
7. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law-
“ Whether the decision of the Courts below on issue no.2 and 3 are perverse for non-consideration of the relevant evidence and for not recording any finding on issue no.2 as to whether the suit land is a Touzi land or annual patta land ! ”
8. It was argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the decision of the trial court as well as the first appellate court on issue no.2 as to whether the suit land is covered by Touzi patta No.43 is not sustainable in law as the same is based on perverse finding for non-consideration of the evidence of PW-3, Lat Mandal of Tinsukia Revenue Circle, who produced the Register of Touzi Patta No.43 vide Ext. 6 and 6(1) which contains the name of the appellant. As such, the plaintiff’s suit for declar
