The court ruled that for a valid land sale contract, concrete evidence of title is essential, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs for claims of compensatory damages.

1. This appeal is filed by the original defendants to challenge the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura, Agartala in Money Suit No.72 of 1999 as confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by his judgment dated 22.02.2017.

2. Brief facts may be noted at the outset. The respondents were the original plaintiffs. They are the legal heirs of deceased Niranjan Barman Roy. The defendants are Union of India and the Telecom Department. According to the plaintiffs, their predecessor - in - title late Niranjan Barman Roy was allotted land by Government before 1971 admeasuring .4 acres situated at Mouja - Bishalgarh. After his death all the plaintiffs had become joint owners of the said land. The Telecom Department was desirous of constructing a building for its telecom exchange and staff quarters for which they were looking out for suitable land. Sometime in the year 1993, the plaintiffs showed interest in selling the land. Negotiations were carried on between two sides. The District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura had assessed the value of land at Rs. 9,00,000/- per kani. Officers of Telecom Department also agreed to the said valuation. Chief General Manager approved the purchase of the said land at the said rate. Such approval was communicated to the plaintiffs under a memorandum dated 10.01.1995. The plaintiffs provided all necessary documents showing their title to the land including non - encumbrance certificate issued by the Government Advocate and the latest Khatians pertaining in the said land. Despite concluded contract in this regard, the defendants did not take any steps for making payment for the land in question. The plaintiffs therefore issued notices and when the department refused to make the payment at agreed rate, the plaintiffs were compelled to file the said suit. According to the plaintiffs, in the meantime, the price of the land had come down considerably to Rs.4,50,000/- per kani on account of insurgency in the area. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for a decree of damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be paid by the defendants by way of compensation.

3. The defendants appeared and filed written statement in which they pointed out that on 24.05.1993 Smt. Subamalata Barman Roy widow of the deceased (who herself has since expired) had made an application to the Telecom Department stating that she had learnt that the department was looking for a suitable land to purchase and she was prepared to sell the land to the department. On such proposal, negotiations were carried out but never finalized and no concluded contract had come into existence. The defendants did agree that the District Magistrate and Collector had assessed the value of the land at Rs.9,00,000/- per kani which was placed before the defendants. However, after obtaining legal opinion, Smt. Subamalata Barman Roy was requested to submit basic documents showing the source of the title, such as, evidence of purchase, exchange, inheritance, gift or allotment by the Government. She failed to provide any such document. She only mentioned in the letter dated 27.03.1995 that the land was allotted to her husband by the Relief Department of the Government of Tripura but no evidence of such allotment was produced. On account of such facts, the agreement for purchase of the land had never materialized. They thus opposed the claim of compensation.

4. The plaintiffs examined one witness namely Sri Ranjan Barman Roy, plaintiff No.5. In his deposition he had reiterated the averments made i