Plaintiffs entitled to compensation for direct losses due to unlawful trespass by officials, establishing ownership and extent of damage as per tort law principles.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baran, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA, assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This is a first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati District, Udaipur, Tripura in connection with case no. Title Suit 16 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the learned court had decreed the suit awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, as projected by the learned trial court is as under:

"2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit land measuring 2.92 acres under Khatian No. 95 was owned and possessed by one Narad Mani Tripura and after the death of Narad Mani Tripura and his wife their sole successor Surjya Prasad Tripura became the owner and possessor of the suit property. During lifetime of Narad Mani Tripura he permitted one Narayan Chandra Tripura to possess a part of suit property as a permissive possessor. However, Surjya Prasad Tripura after becoming the owner and possessor the suit property asked said Narayan Chandra Tripura to vacate the suit property and accordingly he vacated the same. Surjya Prasad Tripura due to some urgent requirement sold out the total plot in two equal parts to the plaintiff No. 1 Rakhal Mog by a registered Sale Deed No. 1-53 dated 06-01-2006 and to Rajendra Tripura, i.e., the plaintiff No. 2 by a Registered Sale Deed vide No. 1-54 dated 06-01-2006 and handed over the possession of the whole suit land to them. After taking possession the plaintiffs uprooted the trees available on the suit property and cleared up all jungles and in the month of June, 2006 planted rubber seedlings and engaged three number of day labourers at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day for such purpose. However, on 05-09-2008 some forest officials, namely, Achintya Datta, Braja Gopal Debbarma, Kanu Debnath, Prantosh Das, Chandi Tripura and Bishnupada Debnath in uniform suddenly trespassed into the suit property damaged the bamboo fencing as well as cut down all the rubber plants. The plaintiffs lodged one Criminal case in the Court of the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia, South Tripura and in that case the trespassers were convicted. However, the plaintiffs could not file Civil suit in this respect in due time and sought for exemption from the limitation under Order VII Rule 6 of C.P.C. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed total amount of Rs. 14,20,000/- from the defendants as compensation with 12% interest. Hence, this suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement. In the written statement the defendants denied the ownership of the defendants over the suit land as well as denied the fact that the forest personnel damaged the rubber plantation and fencing available on the suit land. The defendants also pleaded that though the forest officials were convicted on the same fact but they were acquitted by the Learned Appellate Court and so the defendants have no liability in this suit. Accordingly, the defendants urged to dismiss the suit with cost.

4. At the time of filing this suit the plaintiffs filed one petition under Order VII Rule 6 of C.P.C. seeking exemption from the limitation for claiming the compensation which was granted by this Court vide Order dated 24-08-2012."

4. After exchange of pleadings following issues were framed:

"(I) Whether the plainti