The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes related to land possession and compensation, and can direct the payment of compensation for occupied land. The court clarified that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to direct the Land Acquisition Collector to acquire any land under the occupation of the Government or its agencies.

JUDGMENT

Both these appeals under Section 100 of the CPC as well as the Cross Objection filed under Order XLI Rule 22 read with Order XLII Rule 1 of the CPC have resulted from the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No. 25/1985.

2. The suit was filed by the cross objectors whereas the appellants herein were the defendants. Against the said judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002, the appellants-Airport Authority of India had preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, being Title Appeal No. 59/2002. The cross objectors, Satya Gopal Roy and others had also preferred another appeal, being Cross Appeal No. 16 of 2003 against the said judgment and decree dated 09.09.2002. As the suit was partially decreed, the cross objectors’ appeal, being C.A. No. 16/2003 was allowed partially by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, No. 3 by a common judgment dated 14.11.2006. By the said common judgment, the appeal filed by the appellants-Airport Authority of India was dismissed. In the result, the Airport Authority of India had challenged that common judgment and decree dated 04.11.2006 for dismissing their appeal and for partly allowing the appeal filed by the cross objectors.

3. The appeal, being RSA No. 10/2007 has been filed against the dismissal of the appeal being T.A. No. 59/2002, whereas the appeal, being RSA No. 11/2007 has been filed for partly allowing the appeal being C.A. No. 16/2003. The cross objectors have also filed the cross objection, being CO(RSA) No. 03/2007 against the said common judgment and decree, whereby the part of the reliefs prayed in the suit was dismissed and the part of the reliefs was allowed. For purpose of having compensation for the remaining part of the land which has not been considered by the first appellate court, the cross objection has been filed. Thus it has been necessitated that both these appeals and the cross objection are required to be disposed of by a common judgment for avoidance of any conflicting observation and for harmonious appreciation of the grounds of objection.

4. The factual perspective is required to be laid at the outset for appreciating the substantial questions of law as raised by the appellants and the cross objectors.

5. By filing a suit, being T.S. No. 25/1985, the plaintiffs, the cross objectors herein had prayed for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and for perpetual injunction, restraining the respondents-Airport Authority of India and their agents from entering into their suit land, which is admittedly the jote land belonging to the cross objectors, comprised in khatian No. 516 of Mouza Singerbil and C.S. Plot No. 869 (part), land measuring 1.09 acres and C.S. Plot No. 858 (part), land measuring 0.51 acres. According to the cross objectors, the cause for filing the suit arose when the Airport Authority, by their engaged contractor had started cutting earth in the suit land for purpose of raising some construction, presumably the boundary wall. When the labourers attempted to excavate the earth, they were resisted and, as such, the labourers left the place on 11.02.1985. Immediately thereafter, the said suit was filed taking special leave under Section 80(2) of the CPC.

6. There is no dispute as regards the title of the suit land. The admitted position is that the cross objectors are the owners in possession of the suit land. On the basis of the records, a temporary injunction restraining the appellants herein had been granted by the court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Agartala, West Tripura. But, by the order dated 17.09.1996 passed in Misc. Appal No. 5/1996, the appellants were allowed by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala to construct the boundary wall on condition that they will pay compensation for the land of the plaintiffs which may fall within the boundary of the Airport Authority on the basis of the report of the Surv