SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2248

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.
 
Dabin Soki @ Tabin Soki Son of Late Nada Soki – Appellant
Versus
Smti Yama Yekar Wife of Tapu Yekar – Respondent 
RSA/4 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Muk Pertin, Senior Adv., Mukbom Pertin, Dusu Rillung, Tshering Yangzom Bhutia, Dakjum Riba, Rimo Riba, Karyom Dabi
For the Respondents: Puto Bui, K. Gao, Honi Tana Tara, K. Chotton, Oken Duggong, Nikita Danggen, Tashap Nima

Government land allotment confers rights to the allottee, validating the maintainability of an injunction suit despite disputes over title.

Headnote:(A) Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000 - Sections 88(1)(A) and 124 - Title Suit and Injunction - Plaintiff seeks injunction against encroachment on government allotted land by defendant; Defendant claims possession and title based on a sale agreement. Court finds entries in revenue records and government allotment confer certain rights. (Paras 6, 40)

(B) Maintainability of Suit - The court addresses whether an injunction suit can stand without a concurrent claim for possession when title is disputed; it concludes that the recognized rights based on government allotment negate the necessity for an additional title declaration. (Paras 10, 26)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed an injunction suit against the defendant regarding land allegedly encroached by the latter, which the plaintiff asserted she had a valid claim to after being allotted the land by the government through a gift deed from the ex-wife of the defendant. The issues arose when the defendant claimed that the agreements were forged, disputing the plaintiff’s title and possession.

Findings of Court:
The first Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision based on documentary evidence confirming the plaintiff’s possession and government allotment concerning the disputed land.

Issues: Whether the injunction suit was maintainable without a concurrent claim for a declaration of title, and whether the land allotment conferred absolute rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that government allotment confers sufficient rights on the allottee and does not require a separate declaration of title for an injunction to be sought.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of land ownership dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 8)
2. trial court's issues and findings. (Para 7 , 12 , 20)
3. arguments regarding the maintainability of the suit. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 , 15)
4. legal principles regarding proof of ownership rights. (Para 28 , 33 , 38)
5. final decision of the court. (Para 41)

JUDGMENT :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. N. Danggen, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeal are briefly stated hereinbelow:-

(i)The respondent herein as plaintiff filed an injunction suit against the appellant herein as defendant for restraining the appellant permanently from encroachment of her Govt. allotted land measuring 374 Sq. Mtrs. located at Prem Nagar, ‘B’ Sector, Naharlagun by way of a mandatory injunction. The same was registered as Title Suit No. 30/2017. The facts as have been narrated in the plaint are that in the year, 2005, the appellant persuaded the respondent to buy a plot of land measuring 374.5 Sq. Mtrs. located at ‘B’ Sector, Naharlagun. Accordingly, the aforesaid land was sold to the appellant for an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand) only and a deed of agreement dated 18.02.2005 was executed between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant in acknowledgment of the receipt of the aforesaid amount, executed a money receipt dated 18.02.2005. At the time of the aforesaid purchase, the respondent was unaware of the fact that the actual owner of the land was the ex-wife of the appellant, namely, Smti. Yama Soki as the land was a Government allotted land to her. Accordingly, the respondent constructed an Assam Type house on the aforesaid land and rented it out by procuring electricity and water connection.

(ii) As the respondent came to know that the aforesaid land was in fact a Government allotted land, and the same can only be transferred by way of a gift, a gift deed dated 24.01.2005 was executed between the respondent and the aforesaid Smti. Yama Soki for an area measuring 374 Sq. Mtrs out of total area of 450 Sq. Mtrs. Accordingly, land measuring 374.5 Sq. Mtrs was gifted to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent applied before the competent authority for a formal transfer and allotment of the aforesaid land measuring 374 Sq. Mtrs by submitting the original gift deed and deed of agreement dated 18.02.2005. The competent authority accordingly approved the application of the respondent on 13.04.2006 and the Government Land Pass Book No. NLG/9/77/06 was issued to the respondent. The respondent has been paying the revenue for the aforesaid land to the Government since such allotment.

(iii) The respondent was in a peaceful possession of the aforesaid land and there was no disturbance from anyone including the appellant. The problem arose when Naharlagun General Hospital was upgraded to Tomo Riba Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (TRIHMS) and there was a sudden change in the attitude of the appellant as he started to pick up quarrels with the respondent as well as her tenants for petty issues. The appellant encroached the respondent’s land by threatening her tenants and due to that, the tenants vacated their rooms. Faced with the aforesaid situation, on a complaint, the Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar directed the eviction of the appellant but the appellant never complied with such directions. Rather, the appellant forcefully encroaching over the respondent’s land illegally set up a wine shop and constructed one RCC structure over her portion of land.

(iv) On 26.07.2017, the respondent approached the Addl. District Magistrate, Capital Complex, Itanagar and the Officer-in-Charge of Naharlagun Police Station was directed to do a verification of the land. Accordingly, the aforesaid Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the appellant, respondent and ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top