Ownership and encroachment claims on land require clear proof and adherence to established records, emphasizing the necessity of addressing specific issues raised during the trial.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The defendants are in appeal against a judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi (learned Trial Judge) in a title suit filed by the respondent herein as the plaintiff.

2. The facts relevant to decide the present appeal are as under:

(a) The respondent who was the plaintiff in title suit no. 2 of 2017 approached the court with a suit for declarations, injunctions and other consequential reliefs. It was the respondent's case that he had purchased plot no. 311, 312 and 313 ad-measuring 0.5960 hectare, 0.0460 hectare and 0.1.1140 hectare totalling to 1.7560 hectare (4.3391 acres) at Samardung falling under Burul Block, Elakha Bermoik, District Namchi, South Sikkim vide registered sale deed bearing book no.1, volume no.2, sl. No.32 registered on 17.01.2013 in the office of the sub registrar from one Smt. Jhumki Doma Bhutiani and became the absolute owner of the suit land.

(b) The respondent further pleaded that after the purchase of the suit land he had been in its unencumbered physical possession on and from 09.10.2012. It is the respondent's case that he has since demarcated the disputed suit land with the help of the concerned authority, fenced it wherever it was possible and carried out various development works thereon.

(c) It is pleaded that in the year 2016 the Energy and Power Department, Government of Sikkim (defendant no.3) had identified the suit land for construction of 66 KV sub-station under 'Comprehensive Scheme for Strengthening of T & D lines and sub-stations in Sikkim' for M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. The correspondence exchanges between the department of the government were annexed in support thereof. The respondent asserted that the letter dated 01.12.2016 written by the Sub-Registrar/Sub-Divisional Magistrate (defendant no.4) to defendant no.3 clearly mentioned the suit land had been found recorded in the name of the respondent. It was his case that the authorities concerned processed the file for fixation of rate of the suit land which was also approved by the Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department. The land rate so fixed and approved was Rs.490 per square feet. It is the respondent's case that thereafter, the defendant no.4, vide letter dated 09.05.2017, sought the issuance of a No Objection Certificate as per the land survey records of 1951-52 and 1979-80 cadastral survey. It was asserted that the competent authority i.e. the Land Revenue Department vide Notification No.991/D.D.L.R. dated 17.01.1984 had clearly mentioned that the old land records of 1951 shall cease to be in operation and the new 1979-80 land records shall come into force. It was also asserted in the plaint that the respondent had made detailed inquiries with the concerned authority before purchasing the suit land and came to know that the suit land was once recorded in the name of Bishnu Prasad Sharma, S/o of Late Laldas Sharma vide khatiyan no.31, who had then sold the same to Shri Ong Tshering Bhutia S/o Late Inchung Tok Tok vide registered sale deed bearing book no. A, serial no.163 page no.1117 volume no.1 pages no.163 (26) on 11.07.1990 in the office of the defendant no.4. Thereafter, the suit land was sold by Shri Ong Tshering Bhutia to Ms. Donkala Bhutia vide registered sale deed bearing book no. A, serial no.753, page no.141 on 01.03.2005 in the office of the defendant no.4. Ms. Donkala Bhutia thereafter, sold the suit property to Ms. Jumki Doma Bhutia vide registered sale deed bearing book no.I,