Back
ARINDAM LODH
Ajit Kumar Debbarma – Appellant
Versus
Malin Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over possession and allotment of land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of both parties regarding possession and ownership. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of authority in cancelling allotment orders. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. illegal cancellation of allotment order. (Para 18) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal with no costs. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Khowai in T.A. No.9 of 2018, affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No.79 of 2016.
2. The plaintiff instituted the suit praying for granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from entering into the suit land and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, the appellant herein.
3. The defendants after receipt of summons appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been possessing the suit land for over 40(forty) years but, suddenly, the defendants have started disturbing the peaceful
Unauthorized cancellation of land allotment by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate is illegal; only the Collector retains authority to cancel allotments for non-fulfillment of purpose.
The failure to establish lawful possession and the invalidity of the allotment order led to the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing jurisdictional limits in civil suits regarding land allotments.
Civil Court decrees must be respected by Revenue Courts; cancellation of land allotments requires statutory authority and adherence to reasonable timelines.
A valid land allotment must be canceled before a subsequent allotment can be deemed lawful, reaffirming the plaintiffs' ownership rights and possession under the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms....
The Plaintiff must prove possession of the property as of the filing date, and the cancellation of the DKT patta was valid due to non-compliance with residency and cultivation requirements.
Powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised beyond pleadings of parties.
Civil courts can adjudicate on title and possession of land even if revenue proceedings are pending, as established in relevant case law.
The courts affirmed the principle that a legitimate title and prior possession override claims of permissive possession, in the absence of contrary evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
