The court established that mere possession of government land does not constitute ownership without legal settlement, even for individuals belonging to protected classes.

JUDGMENT

Date : 31-07-2018

This second appeal by the plaintiff is against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Appeal No.24/2006, whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal as well as the suit of the plaintiff, concurring with the findings of the learned Munsiff.

[2] The second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:

a. Whether the plaintiff/appellant being a member of the scheduled caste community are entitled to get protection under Section 160 and Section 162 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1885 (as amended)?

b. Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to get settlement under Clause 16 of the Special provision for scheduled castes and schedule tribe of the Government of Assam land policy, 1989?

[3] Brief facts of the case leading to the present second appeal may be stated thus:, the appellant as plaintiff filed the Title Suit No.24/2004 for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction. The pleaded case of the plaintiff was that he had been possessing 2 kathas of Government land out of the 16 bigha, 4 katha and 17 lechas of land under Dag No.70, within the Chariduar tribal belt area. The defendants attempted to evict the plaintiff from the suit land on various occasions but he continued to be in possession and thereby acquired right title and interest by adverse possession. The defendant No.3 initiated an eviction proceeding against him vide CDC/16/20/2-04/295, dated 20.02.2004 and issued notice. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of his right title and interest over the suit land and injunction both prohibitory as well as mandatory.

[4] The pleaded case of the defendant was that the plaintiff was an encroacher on the government land and he illegally encroached the suit land in the year 2001. Eviction proceeding was initiated as per law, vide Eviction Case No.1/2001, to evict the plaintiff being an illegal encroacher of Govt. land. It was also stated that the plaintiff had no right title and interest over the suit land and the suit was not maintainable.

[5] On the basis of the above pleadings, learned Munsiff framed the following issues:

1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable?

3. Whether the suit is barred by law?

4. Whether the plaintiff acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

6. To what relief/relief(s) the parties are entitled to?

[6] The plaintiff examined 6 (six) witnesses, however, the defendants did not adduce any evidence. After hearing the parties, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

[7] Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the learned Civil Judge which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence the present second appeal.

[8] Mr. AK Sarkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. K Phukan, learned Govt. advocate, Assam were heard.

[9] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff being a person belonging to schedule caste, falls within the category of protected class as contemplated in Section 160 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation (for short Regulation), and was eligible to get-settlement of land within the tribal belt. However, both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with an erroneous finding that the plaintiff did not belong to the class protected under Section 160 of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation. Ms. Phukan, learned Govt. advocate contended, that in vi