Aimoni Chetia & 8 Ors versus Madhab Gohain & 6 ORSlakhimpurjudiciary.gov.in/judgment...

Aimoni Chetia & 8 Ors versus Madhab Gohain & 6 ORS

High Court Form No. (J)2

HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF MUNSIff, DHAKUAKHANA, LAKHIMPUR

District- Lakhimpur

PRESENT: Monica Missong, AJS

Wednesday, the 4th day of January, 2015

Title Suit No-09 of 2012

1. Smti Aimoni Chetia, Secretary, Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata S.S Ltd

2. Smti Renu Goswami, Chairman,Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata S.S Ltd, Ghilamar

3. Smti Hemo Prova Gogoi, Vice- President 4. Smti Phula Prova Sut, Ex. Member 5. Smti Dhanada Bharali, Ex Member 6. Smti Bulumoni Bora, Ex. Member 7. Smti Lakhimai Lahan, Ex. Member 8. Smti Hemanti Gohai, Ex. Member

All are Ex Member of Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata S.S. Ltd. Mouza & P.S. Ghilamara ……………………. Plaintiffs

-Vs-

1. Sri Madhab Gohain, S/o- Lt. Hem Ch. Gohain

2. Sri Jiten Gohain, S/o- Sri Madhab Gohain

3. Smti Dipamaoni Bora, W/O- Sri Lekhan Bora

4. Smti Khiroda Gohain, W/o- Sri Ajit Gohain

5. Sri Khagen Baruah, S/o- Lt. Sahab

6. Smti Dhana Baruah, W/o- Sri Bhaben Barua

7. Smti Champa Baruah, W/o- Lt. Bolin Baruah

All are residents of Raidongia Gaon, Mouza & P.S.

Ghilamara, P.O. Ghilamara, Dist. Lakhimpur.

This Suit came in for final hearing on 08-12-14 & 18-12-14 in presence of-

1. Mr S. Baruah ----Ld Counsel for the Plaintiffs. 2. Mr R.K Baruah----Ld Counsel for the Defendants.

And having stood for consideration to this day, the Court

delivered the following judgment-

J U D G M E N T

Page 1 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


This is a suit primarily for passing Khas Possession and to

pass Decree of Permanent injunction against the defendants,

their engaged men, agents, worker, labourers etc.over the land

mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint.

BRIEF FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE:

1. The fact of the plaintiffs’ case is that the plaintiffs

formed a Samitttee name and style as ‘Ghilamara Anchalik

Bowa Kata Samabai Samittee Ltd’ in the year 1981. That

the Ghilamara Anchalik Bowa Kata Samabai Ltd was

registered in the department and got a Registration No.

DJ-88 dtd 15/09/81 by the Assistant Registrar of Co-

operative society, Dhemaji. The aims and objectives of

the Ghilamara Anchalik Bowa Kata Samabai Samitee Ltd

(hereinafter referred as Samittee) was to eke out the

livelihood of the women folk and for that purpose

training for preparation of Jam, Jelly and Pickle were

given and also to engage the women folk in the culture of

weaving and knitting by wearing of Pat, Muga and Ari.

That the plaintiffs are the present office bearer of the

‘Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Samittee Ltd’. That as a

plot of land was required by the Samittee so the Samittee

moved the Government of Assam to allot some land in the

name of the Samittee.

2. That, at the instant and persuasion, the Government of

Assam allotted a plot of land measuring 1 (one) Bigha

covered by Dag No. 257(Ka) in the village Tenga Aam

Revenue map under Gohain mouza by making the said land

dereservation vide Govt. Letter Memo No. RSG 16-2003-A/14

dtd 20/03/2004 which was concurred by the vide Deputy

Commissioner, Lakhimpur letter No. LRS/1/2/19/323 dtd

7/8/2004. The plaintiffs deposited the value of the land

to the Sub Divisional Officer Civil, Dhakuakhana, as per

order No.DR/1-A/PT-1/99-2000 dtd 30/01/2007. Accordingly,

the land was allotted in the name of Chairman/Secretary,

Ghilamra Bowa Kata Samabai Samittee. It would be

pertinent to state that the land was bifurcated from the

original Dag No. 257 making it a new Dag as 257(Ka). On

the strength of record of right local Circle Officer

along with the Revenue staff handed over the delivery of

possession of the land to the Samittee and the Samittee

constructed a temporary house in the said land and

Page 2 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


undertook the function of the Samittee as Training Center

of various weaving, knitting preparation of Jams, Jelly

and pickle and devoted themselves to uplift the financial

status of the poor and down trodden women folk. But the

said temporary house was damaged due to natural

calamities and become dilapidated condition and so was

waiting for government concurrence to make its structures

as a permanent one. That on the night of 16/03/2010 and

17/03/2010 the defendant No. 1 Madhab Gohain and

defendant No. 2 Jiten Gohain illegally trespassed the

land of the Samittee and erected a temporary shed thereon

with CGI sheet. That, when the Samittee noticed the

illegal construction in the morning and raised objection

to vacate the land by wrongdoers then all the defendants

formed an unlawfully assembly and picked up quarrel with

the members of the Samittee leading to the situation of

apprehension of the breach of the peace for the purpose

of possession. That, thereafter the Samittee took

resource and approach the Circle Officer, Subansiri

Circle who sent the said application to the O/C,

Dhakuakhana, police station and so a non-FIR was

registered in the court of the Executive Magistrate,

Dhakuakhana. That the said land has been sanctioned in

the name of “Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Somabai Somittee

Ltd” and was duly handed delivery of possession by the

Learned Circle Officer. But when the dispossession

already been taken the instant suit was instituted by

passing a resolution on behalf of the Ghilamara Anchalik

Bowa Kata Samabai Samittee Ltd. Hence, the plaintiff

field the present suit to recover the possession of the

suit land and to obtain permanent injunction against the

defendants, their engaged men, agents, workers, labourers

etc.

3. The defendants appeared on receiving summonses and they

submitted their written statements. Defendant No. 1 and 2

submitted their written statements together. They stated

that the suit is not maintainable in its present form.

That it is barred by limitation. That the suit is false,

frivolous and vexatious and as such same is liable to be

dismissed. That the suit is barred by principles of

waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. That there is no cause

of action for the suit. That the suit is bad for

Page 3 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


misjoinder and non-joinder of parties specially the State

of Assam and Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samity. They deny all

the pleadings taken by the plaintiffs. They stated that

there was no existence of the Somabai Society in any

location not to speak of in the present suit land

described in schedule of the plaint. That further, the

defendants claimed that registration of Ghilamara

Anchalik Samabai Samittee was granted on the application

of one Sri Tilak Chetia, who a service holder, being Head

Master of Kanta Khanikar Girls’ School at that relevant

time. That the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Somabai

Society Ltd has no such suit land.

4. The defendants state that the Dag No. 257 covers 1 bihga

1 katha 8 Lessas of land out of which the answering

defendant No. 1 possessed 3 Kathas 8 lessas of land which

was delivered to defendant No.1 as far back in the year

1992 by the Mondal of the locality as the land of the of

the Dag- 257 was grazing land. The defendants state that

the Government allotted 1 Bigha of land to the defendant

No. 1 and in pursuance to such allotment the official

Mondal delivered possession of the land to defendant No.

1 and since then the defendant No. 1 is occupying the

land by constructing residential house in a portion of

the land and the delivering the remaining portion of the

land as Basti. The defendants state that the plaintiffs

came with force to take possession of the land under the

occupation of the defendants and Raidongia Gaon Mahila

Samity but on the serious resistance of the answering

defendants and defendant No. 3 and 4, who are the

President and the Secretary Of Raidongia Gaon Mahila

Samity, the plaintiffs failed to take possession of the

land. The Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samittee is in possession

of 3 Kathas of land on the southern side of the answering

defendants land. That the defendant No 1 and 2 are one of

the possessor over the suit land since 1992 by

constructing residential houses, Bharal Ghar and Bettel

nut trees etc. That the statements made by the plaintiffs

in their plaint alleging that the defendants never

possessed the said land prior to allotment to the

plaintiffs of the disputed suit land is totally denied by

the defendants. That the fact of possession of the

defendants is evident from the documents filed by the

Page 4 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


plaintiffs along with the FIR filed by the plaintiffs

before the Ghilamara Police Station and also from the

notice dated 06/03/10 issued by the Circle Officer,

Subansiri Revenue Circle, Ghilamara. Therefore, the

defendant No 1 and 2 prayed to dismiss the suit with

Compensatory cost of Rs. 3,500/-.

5. Defendant No 3 and 4 have submitted separate written

statement. Defendant No. 3 and 4 have almost reiterated

the same thing as defendant No. 1 and 2. The said

defendants state that the defendants are office bearers

of “Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samity” which is 2029 of 1991-

92. That defendant No. 3 is the president and the

defendant No. 4 is the Secretary of the said Raidongia

Gaon Mahila Samity. That the office of the Raidongia Gaon

Mahila Samittee is situated over an area of 3 kathas of

land covered by Dag No. 257 of Tega Aam Revenue village,

Mouza Gohain. The dag No. 257 covers an area of 1 Bigha 1

katha 8 Lessa of land out of which on the northern side

of the suit land the Basti, Bharal Ghar and residence of

defendant No 1 is situated. That the office house of the

defendant No 3 and 4 is situated over the 3 kathas of the

land from 1990-91. That the Raidongia Gaon Mahila

Samittee in the year 1991-1992 has already applied for

allotment of the said 3 Kathas of land in the name of

Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samittee to the circle Officer,

Subansiri revenue circle, Ghilamara. That the plaintiffs

have no possession over the land either in Dag No. 257 or

in Dag No. 257(Ka). That the localities of the defendant

No.3 and 4 have never seen the plaintiffs over the suit

land. That the plaintiffs have registered Non FIR case

No. 1/10, u/s 107/145 of the Crpc. That an illegal

attachment order was obtained by the plaintiffs. In spite

of having office house of the defendants No. 3 and 4.

That a Bharal Ghar and trees of defendant No. 1 are also

standing over the said land of Dag No. 257(Ka) which was

also attached. That the date mentioned as 17/03/10 is a

fictitious date. That the date is given only to cover up

the limitation to file this suit.

6. Defendant No. 5 and 6 had also submitted written

statement separately. Defendant No. 5 Sri Khagen Baruah

and defendant No 6 Smti Dhanada Baruah alias Dhana Baruah

had iriterated the same things as of defendant No 1, 2, 3

Page 5 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


and 4. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of this

suit with costs of Rs. 3500/-.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

7. After perusing the Plaint and the W/S of the contesting

defendants, following issues were framed by my ld

predecessor-

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

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form

or not?

3. Whether the suit is filed within the period of

limitation or not?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of

necessary parties or not?

5. Whether the suit is properly valued or not?

6. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession over the

scheduled land prior to date of alleged cause of

action or not?

7. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest

over the Suit land?

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of

permanent injunction as prayed for?

9. What other relief(s), the parties are entitled to?

8. The Plaintiffs’ side, in order to prove their case,

adduced 4 (four) lists of witnesses. Also one official

witness was examined by learned predecessor Munsiff,

Lakhimpur. The Plaintiff also exhibited as many as 9

(nine) documents viz Certificate of Registration Number

as Ext-1; Letter of Proposal for allotment of land in the

name of Ghilamra Anchalik Bua Kata Samabai Samittee under

Dhakuakhana, Sub division from Shri P.C. Bhagawati, ACS,

Deputy Secrtary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue

(Settlement) Depsrtment as Ext-2; Trace map as Ext-3 and

Exhibit 4; Govt. Order alloting the disputed land to the

Chairman/Secretary, Ghilamara Boa- Kata Somabai Samittee

as Exhibit 5. Jamabandi as Exhibit 6 and Copy of

Resolution No. 2 dated 28/02/12 as Exhibit 7. PW 5 has

exhibited the Jamabandi Copy and marked the same as

Exhibit 8. Exhibit 9 is the trace map identified by the

PW 5. The defendants’ side adduced evidence of only 5

Page 6 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


(five) DWs. Defendants’ side has adduced 7 documentary

evidence.

9. I heard arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the

defendants. The plaintiff side has submitted written

arguments. The plaintiff side has relied upon the

following case law: (2007)1 GAUHATI LAW REPORT 556. I

perused the materials and scrutinized the evidence on

records

DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE, DECISION & REASONS

THEREOF:

Issue No. 1:

10. The plaintiffs claimed that they formed a Somabai

Samittee named “Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Somabai

Society Ltd” in the year 1981 and had registered the same

under Registration No. DJ-88 dtd 15-09-81. The issues in

hand is the most vital issue in this suit. PW-1 Smti Renu

Goswami who is the Chairman of Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-

Kata Samittee stated that the said Samittee was

registered and incorporated with the Registration

Department of the Government of Assam under Registration

No. DJ 82 dtd 15.09.81. That the committee consists of

all female members. That aims and objectives of the said

Committee is to engage the women in the work of weaving,

knitting and for preparation of Jam, Jelly and pickle

and thereby try to uplift the financial position of poor

and down trodden women folk.

11. That, at the instant and persuasion of the

plaintiffs, the Government of Assam allotted a plot of

land vide Government Letter Memo No. RSG 16-2003-A/37 dtd

Dispur 28/08/2003. The plaintiffs deposited the value of

the land to the Sub Divisional Officer Civil,

Dhakuakhana, as per order No.DR/1-A/PT-1/99-2000 dtd

30/01/2007. That the Circle Officer prepared the Trace

Map and also delivered possession of the suit land and

gave a patta to the plaintiffs. That the defendants have

illegally constructed a temporary shade therein with CGI

sheated roof. That the defendants never possessed the

suit land prior to allotment to the plaintiffs and that

it was a Government abandoned land, making the disputed

suit land as dereservation land after the allotment in

the name of the plaintiffs’ committee.

Page 7 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


12. The defendants denied all the claims of the

plaintiffs and alleged that the plaintiffs have no

Samittee called as Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Samabai

Samittee. That in the said land no encroachment had taken

place. That the plaintiffs with some false documents have

filed the instant case. That the defendants have been in

the suit land since 1990-1991 without any disturbances. A

cause of action is bundle of facts which is asserted by

one party and denied by the other party. On perusal of

the pleadings I find that there are substantial questions

of rights of the plaintiffs and the defendants to be

determined. Therefore, I find that there is cause of

action for the suit. This issue is answered in

affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

13. To decide whether the present suit is

maintainable, I have perused the pleadings and evidence

on record. The contesting defendants only alleged that

the suit is not maintainable in its present form or

manner without showing anything as to how the suit is not

maintainable in the existing form. The learned counsel of

the defendants has however, submitted orally - That the

word “limited” is not mentioned in the Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 5

and 6. That in paragraph 3 of the plaint the Registration

Number stated by the plaintiffs is Registration No.DJ-88

dtd 15-9-81 and whereas in Exhibit 1 the Registration No.

given is DJ-82 dtd 15-9-81. I have perused the

documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. In

Exhibit I which is the Certificate of Registration No.DJ-

82 dtd 15-9-81 of 1981-1982 in the office of the

Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dhemaji

there the word “Limited” is used. Regarding the date

mentioned by the plaintiffs in para 3 of the plaint which

does not match with the actual date, I can very well

understand that such mistake may be by typographical

mistake and is not such as to declare that the suit not

maintainable. I also don’t find any reason to hold

otherwise. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the

suit in hand is very much maintainable in its present

form. Hence Issue No-2 is decided in affirmative.

Page 8 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


Issue No. 3:

14. Perused the materials on record. The plaintiffs

filed this suit to get a decree of Khas Possession and to

obtain permanent injunction against the defendants, their

engaged men, agents, workers, labourers etc. the

plaintiff has stated that the cause of action arouse when

the defendants all of a sudden in the night of 17/03/2010

illegally trespassed the suit land of the plaintiffs and

erected a Temporary shade therein. Also on 19/03/2010

when the matter was reported to the Circle Officer. Hence

the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Hence

Issue No-3 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 5:

15. The defendants’ side has stated that the suit is

not properly valued. That the market value of the land

will be more than 5 lakhs. That the suit cannot be valued

on the allotment value. But the defendants’ side has not

adduced any evidence to prove that the suit land is of

more than 5(five) lakhs. From perusal of the materials

available it is cleared that the suit land is not a

commercial land. Hence, I hold the suit land is properly

valued. Hence, issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the

plaintiffs.

Issue No. 7:

16. Before going into the issue No. 6, I consider that

the present issue is to be decided earlier. The issue in

hand is the most vital issue in this suit. The PW 1 Smti

Renu Goswami deposed on her evidence on affidavit that

she is the President of Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata

Samabai Society Ltd. That the said Ghilamra Anchalik Boa-

Kata Samabai Society Ltd was registered and incorporated

with the Registration Department of the Government of

Assam and had the said Committee registered under the

Registration No.DJ-82 dtd 15-09-81 by the Assistant

Registrar of Co-operative Society: Dhemaji. Exhibit 1 is

the copy of Registration. That aims and objectives of the

said Committee is to engage the women in the work of

weaving and knitting and preparation of pickle and

thereby try to uplift the financial position of poor and

down trodden women folk. That on an application filed by

Page 9 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


the Samittee to the Government of Assam, the Government

of Assam allotted land measuring 1 bigha of the suit land

vide letter No.RSG-16/2003(A)/37 dtd, Dispur, the 28th

August/03 under Dhakuakhana Sub-division. PW 1 exhibited

letter No.RSG-16/2003(A)/37 as Exhibit 2. That the Circle

Officer under Dhakuakhana Sub Division handed over the

possession of the suit land and prepared trace map

accordingly. PW 1 exhibited trace map prepared By Circle

Officer as Exhibit-3. And PW 1 also exhibited Trace map

prepared by the plaintiffs as Exhibtit-4.

17. That vide letter No. D-R/1-A/PT-1/99-2000/ dtd

03/01/07 the State of Assam has allotted I bigha of land

covered by Dag No. 257(Ka) in the village Tega Aam

Revenue Map under Gohain Mouza. PW 1 had exhibited the

Government order No. DR/1-A/PT-1/99-2000 dtd 3/1/2007 and

marked the same as Exhibit 5. PW 1 has also exhibited the

Jamabandi Copy wherein it is written that 1 Bigha of land

covered by Dag No. 257(ka) has been allotted to the

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Samittee and marked the same

as Exhibit 6. That the Samittee constructed a temporary

house in the said land and undertook the function of the

Samittee as training center of various weaving, knitting

preparation of Jams, Jelly and pickle and devoted

themselves to uplift the financial status of the poor and

down trodden women folk. But the said temporary house was

damaged due to natural calamities and become dilapidated

condition and was waiting for the government concurrence

to make its structures as a permanent one. That on the

night of 17/03/2010 the defendant No. 1 Sri Madhab Gohain

and defendant No. 2 Sri Jiten Gohain illegally trespassed

the land of the Samittee and erected a temporary shed

thereon with CGI sheet. That, thereafter the Samittee

took resource and approach the Circle Officer and before

the Civil SDO, Dhakuakhana and on receipt of complaint

the O/C Dhakuakhana registered a case u/s 145 Crpc. That

a meeting was held to seek relief from the Civil Court

dtd 28.02.12. PW 1 exhibited the Resolution taken in the

meeting held on 28/02/12 and marked the same as Exhibit-

7.

18. In her cross examination PW 1 had stated that she

has written in the plaint the Registration No. of

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Samittee as DJ/88 dtd 15/9/81

Page 10 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


whereas in the Exhibit 1 it is DJ/82 dtd 15/09/81. That

she has not submitted the Proceeding Book of the

Samittee. That in Exhibit 7 the registration No. is

written as GJ/82/81. That in Exhibit the signature of one

of the Plaintiff Smti Dhanada Bharali is not present.

That on the resolution taken in the meeting the date

mentioned is 24/02/12 and not 28/02/12. That in the said

resolution there is no such terms which indicate that the

defendant No. 1 and 2 were disposed from the suit land.

On perusal of the documents available even if there is a

conflict in mentioning the dates and some contradictions

in the chief I do not find it proper to doubt the

veracity of the documents produced by the plaintiffs to

prove his case.

19. PW 2 Smti Aimoni Chetia who is the Chairman of

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Samittee, PW 3 Smti Phula

Prava Sut and PW 4 Sri Joygeswar Hazarika reiterated the

same statements on their evidence on affidavit as stated

by PW 1 Sri Renu Goswami in her evidence. PW 1 has stated

that she has not submitted the Proceeding Book of the

Samittee. That in Exhibit 7 the registration No. is

written as GJ/82/81. That on the resolution taken in the

meeting the date mentioned is 24/02/12 and not 28/02/12.

That in the said resolution there is no such terms which

indicate that the defendant No. 1 and 2 were dispossessed

from the suit land. That in the Exhibit 1, it is

mentioned that women of 27 villages are there in the

Samittee whereas in the Resolution taken in the meeting

which is the Exhibit 7, only 6 groups of women are

involved in the Samittee is mentioned. That she has not

made any trainee a witness in the present suit.

20. PW 2 in her cross examination has admitted that in

the Para 3 of the plaint the registration No. of the

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Somabai Samittee is written

as DJ/88 dtd 15/09/81 and not as DJ/82 dtd 15/09/81.

21. PW 3 in her cross examination has admitted that the

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Somabai Samittee is fully

composed of women members. That the suit land contains 1

katha 8 lechas of land. That no one from the Samittee who

has undergone training has been made a witness in the

instant suit.

Page 11 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


22. PW 4 in his cross examination has admitted that he

works as a worker of Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata

Samittee. That he does not know all the 250 members of

the Samittee.

23. PW 5 Shri Indra Baruah who is the Lat Mondal of

Revenue Lat Subansiri was called as an official witness.

He deposed in his evidence that Exhibit 8 is the

Jamabandi copy. That earlier land covered by Dag No. 257

was a government land. That Exhibit 8(1) is the new dag

Number bearing Dag No. 257. In the Jamabandi it is

written the State Of Assam On 20/03/2004 vide letter

No.RSG-16/2003/A/40 and on 07/08/2000 vide Memo

No.LRS/1/2/99/323 ordered that the land covered by Dag

No. 257 (kha) is allotted to the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-

Kata Samabai Samittee on 04/12/2009. Exhibit 8(2) is

written by the Deputy Commissioner. PW 5 proved his

signature and marked Exhibit 8(3). That on the basis of

this the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Samabai Samittee

has got the said suit land. PW 5 has exhibited the Trace

Map and marked it as Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9(1) is the suit

land covered by Dag No. 257.

24. DW 1 Sri Madhab Gohain has deposed in his evidence

that his Late Uncle Mohendra Gohain has possessed the

land covering Dag No. 257 since 1980-81. That since

childhood he has seen a village lane in the western side

of the suit land. That about 10 to 12 family used this

village road. DW 1 has deposed that after his marriage he

has filed an application in the Circle Office for

allotting him land. That they have possessed about 3

kathas 8 lechas of the suit land. And that since the

Government Mondal has shown him almost 1 Bigha of land so

he has been in the possession of the suit land from the

year 1992. That in the south of the suit land covering

dag No. 257 one Raidongia Samittee has been in possession

of the land. And that the said Raidongia Samittee has

constructed a house in the suit land. That the house is

still there in the suit land and sometimes construction

of the house takes place. That when the DW 1 and the

Raidongia Samittee took possession of the suit land at

that time no one was in the possession of the suit land

and that at that time there was only one Dag Number for

the suit land. That since 1992 DW 1 have been in

Page 12 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


possession of 3 katha 8 lecha of the said land covering

Dag No. 257. That surrounding the suit land in the

Northern side is the land covering Dag No.257 which is in

the possession of the DW 1 and in the Southern side is

the PWD Road and in the East a school and in the Western

side is the Village Road. DW 1 stated that in the suit

land there is no Samittee called Ghilamara Anchalik Boa

Kata Somobai Samittee. That the Government Mondal has

never allotted any land covering Dag No. 257 or 267 or

257(ka) to the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs have

submitted forge documents in the instant case. DW 1 had

exhibited the notice issued to him by the Subansiri

Circle Office and marked the same as Exhibit ka. DW 1 has

also exhibited the copy of summonses of case No.12/10 and

marked it as Exhibit kha.

25. In his cross examination DW 1 has stated that he

has not submitted any trace map as to where he has

constructed his house and planted trees. He also deposed

in his cross that he has acquired no document from the

SDC Office to prove that he is in possession of the suit

land. He further deposed in his evidence on affidavit

that he has not mentioned the land which is in his

possession in the suit land. That he has not produced any

documents to show that he has applied for land. That he

has no document to show that the mondal has delivered him

the suit land. He further admitted that till today he has

not filed any suit challenging the documents of the

plaintiffs relating to the suit land.

26. DW 2 Sri Manaranjan Borgohain stated in his

evidence in chief that since prior to his birth a village

lane is in the western side of the suit land. That about

10 to 12 family used this village road. That since the

days of his father, that is, from 1980-1981 in the suit

land he along with his other brothers have been

cultivating crops. And that in the year 1990-91 the

Raidongia Mohila Samittee took 3 kathas of land and

constructed their office in the Southern side of their

land. And that the rest of the land were taken by his

brother Sri Madhab Gohain which were shown him by the

Government Mondol. That his brother Sri Madhab Gohain

from the year 1991-92 has been staying in 2 kathas of the

suit land. In his cross examination DW 2 stated that in

Page 13 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


the suit land there is no Samittee called Ghilamara

Anchalik Boa Kata Samabai Samittee. DW 2 further stated

that he knew the fact that the State of Assam has

allotted 1 Bigha of land covering Dag No. 257.

27. DW 3 Shri Durlav Baruah has stated in his evidence

on affidavit that since last 60 years in the western side

of the suit land there is a village road. That about 10

to 12 family used this village road. That his house is

near the suit land. That he has never seen the Ghilamara

Anchalik Boa- Kata Samittee in the suit land. That since

1992 the DW 3 has been seeing the Defendant Sri Madhab

Gohain and Rondongia Mahila Samittee in the suit land.

That in the suit land there is no Samittee called

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Somobai Samittee and that the

documents produced by the plaintiffs are all bogus

documents. In his cross DW 3 has stated that he is aware

of the fact that the plaintiffs have been allotted the

suit land and that the defendants has possessed the suit

land.

28. DW 4 Sri Khagen Boruah in his evidence in affidavit

has almost reiterated the same evidence as given by the

other DWs. That he has never heard about the Ghilamara

Anchalik Boa- Kata Samittee. That the defendants have

been in the possession of the suit land. In his cross

examination, the DW 4 has stated that he has not filed

any case against the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Samabai

Samittee challenging its validity.

29. DW 5 Smti Dipamoni Baruah has stated in her

evidence in chief that she is the chairman of the

Raidongia Mahila Samittee. That the Raidongia Mahila

Samittee was established in the year 1990. That since

1990-91 they have been in the suit land. That in the year

1991-92 the Raidongia Mahila Samittee was registered and

the registration No. of the Raidongia Mahila Samittee is

2029 of 1991-92 and that it was renewed on 29/10/13. DW 5

has exhibited the Certificate of Registration of

Societies of Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samittee and marked

the same as Exhibit (Ga). That the Raidongia Mahila

Samittee has been in the possession of 3 kathas of the

suit land covering Dag No 257 since 1990-91. That in the

year 1991-92 an application has been submitted to the

State of Assam for the allotment of the 3 Kathas of the

Page 14 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


suit land. That till now the State of Assam has not

allotted the land to them but that still they are in the

possession of the 3 Kathas of the suit land. That they

have not submitted any documents to show that they have

filed an application to get allotment of the suit land.

DW 5 stated that in the suit land there is no Samittee

called Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Somobai Samittee. That

the plaintiffs have submitted forge documents in the

instant case.

30. I perused the evidences of the PWs and the DWs and

the materials and documents available. Also heard

argument put forwarded by the defendants’ side. The

plaintiff has relied on the case of (2007) GAUHATI LAW

REPORTS 556. The plaintiffs’ side has adduced exhibit 1

which is the Registration Certificate of the Ghilamara

Anchalik Bua-Kata Samabai Samity Ltd bearing Registration

No. DJ-82 dtd 15/09/81 of 1981-82. But the plaintiffs’

side has stated in the plaint the Registration No. of the

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Samittee as DJ-88 dtd

15/09/81 of 1981-82. The defendants’ side has objected to

it. Also the defendants’ side has raised a doubt in

Exhibit 7 which is the paper pad of the Ghilamara

Anchalik Boa-Kata Samittee wherein the Registration No.

of Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata is written as GJ 82/1981.

On perusal of the documents I found that the plaintiffs’

side in Exhibit 2 has proved that the Deputy Secretary to

the Government of Assam, Revenue(Settlement) Department

has on 28/09/03 vide Memo No.RSG-16/2003(A) put forward a

proposal for allotment of land in the name of Ghilamara

Anchalik Bua- Kata Somobai Samittee under Dhakuakhana

Sub-division. Exhibit 3 and 4 are trace maps of the

allotted land covering Dag No. 257(Ka) prepared by the

Circle Officer. The plaintiff has exhibited document

letter No. D-R/1-A/PT-1/99-2000 dtd 03/01/2007 wherein

the Sub-divisional Officer Civil, Dhakuakhana allotted

the suit land to the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Samabai

Samittee. The plaintiff has also exhibited the Jamabandi

copy and marked it as Exhibit 6. In the Jamabandi copy it

is written that 1 Bigha of land covering dag No. 257 is

allotted to the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa- Kata Somobai

Samittee. Also one official witness PW 5 Sri Indra Baruah

who is the Lat mandal of No.2 Revenue lat Subansiri has

Page 15 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


also exhibited a Jamabandi copy and marked it as Exhibit

8. In the said Jamabandi copy too it is clearly written

that 1 bigha of land covering Dag No. 257(Ka) is allotted

to the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Samabai Samittee. The

learned counsel of the defendants have objected to these

two Jamabandi copies stating the dates mentioned in the

copies does not tally with one another. In Exhibit 6 the

date mentioned is 04/02/2009 and in Exhibit 8 the date

mentioned is 04/12/2009. Relating to the clash of dates

in the two Jamabandi copies I am of the opinion that even

though the dates does not tally with each other it is

strong enough to prove the fact that 1 bigha of the suit

land was given to the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Somobai

Samittee by the State of Assam vide letter Memo No.RSG

16-2003-A/40 dtd 20/03/2004 and vide Deputy Commisioner,

Lakhimpur letter vide No. LRS/1/2/19/323 dtd 07/08/04.

The PW 5 has also exhibited trace map showing the suit

land. Plaintiffs’ side has also exhibited a resolution

which was taken in the Samittee meeting to discuss about

the illegal possession taken by the defendants. The

defendants’ side on the other hand in their evidence in

chief has deposed that they have been in the possession

of the suit land since 1990-91. But the defendants’ has

failed to adduce any documentary evidence to prove the

fact that they have been in the suit land since 1990-

1991. DW 1 has stated in his evidence on affidavit that

he has been in the suit land since 1990-1991 and that he

has constructed a house and planted many trees and DW 5

has stated that in the year 1990-1991 the Raidongia

Mahila Samittee was established. But I am finding it hard

to belief this part of the story of the defendants. In my

opinion, if the defendants have stayed in the suit land

since 1990-1991, then why the defendants have failed to

produce a single documentary evidence to prove that the

suit land belong to them. The defendants’ side even has

not exhibited Khazana receipt. The defendants’ side has

objected to the fact that plaintiffs’ side has not

adduced any member of the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata

Samittee a witness. But PW 4 Sri Jogeswar Hazarika in his

cross exmaination has deposed that he works as a labour

in the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Samabai Samitee. So I

cannot hold that no member of the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-

Page 16 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


Kata Samabai Samittee was not examined. But to the

contrary, DW 5 who is the Chairman of Raidongia Mahila

Samittee has herself not adduced any members or workers

as witness from Mahila Samittee to support her case. The

defendants’ side has objected to the details of

boundaries given by the plaintiffs. That there is a

discrepancy in narrating the boundaries of the suit land

by the plaintiffs. That the dates mentioned in the

documents do not tally. In my opinion even if the

plaintiffs have narrated the boundaries of the suit land

wrongly, the fact that the suit land is allotted to the

plaintiff by the State of Assam and the documentary

evidences which prove that the suit land is allotted to

the plaintiffs cannot be overlooked. The defendants No.3

and 4 claimed that they formed a Mahila Samittee as

Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samittee and that they are in

possession of 3 kathas of land covering Dag No. 257. The

defendant No. 5 has exhibited “Certificate of

Registration of Socities Act XXI OF 1860 where it has

certified that the Raidongia Goan Mahila Samity has been

registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of

1860 and has marked the same as Exhibit Ga. Without going

into veracity of the said document, I do not find the

said document sufficient to prove that the suit land

belongs to the defendant No. 3, 4 and 5. Also no

documentary evidences were adduced by the said defendants

to prove their versions. DW 5 in her cross examination

has stated and admitted that the State Government has not

allotted any land to the Raidongia Mahila Samittee. That

the Samittee had filed an application to the State of

Assam for allotment of the suit land but till now no land

has been allotted to them. Here also the DW 5 has failed

to prove that they have given an application to the State

of Assam for allotment of land since DW 5 has not

produced any documents relating to this matter. Also the

defendants’ side has not claimed or filed any suit for

the adverse possession of the suit land.

31. The plaintiffs’ side has cited (2007)1 GAUHATI LAW

REPORTS 556 to support their case. I perused the said

case law. In the instant case in para No. 12, it has

stated relating to the said case that “the defendants

have not set out any counter claim claiming title in

Page 17 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


their favour, they basically denied the title of the

plaintiff and the plaintiff by adducing necessary

evidence, both oral and documentary including the

periodic patta, proved their title. The periodic patta

issued to a land settlement holder cannot be questioned

catically or collaterally without specific challenge in

appropriate proceeding which is lacking in the instant

case. So long the patta exists relating to the suit land,

the title goes in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants

though tried to set up a title on their shoulder by

adducing oral evidence, the said oral evidence cannot be

out way the documentary evidence as produced by the

plaintiff to nullify their claim. That apart such plea of

title has not taken in their written statement alleging

them to set up an unpleaded case”.

32. In our case also the defendants’ side has not

produced any documentary evidence to show that the suit

land belong to them.

33. Hence considering the above facts and circumstances

and coupled with my reasons I hold that the plaintiffs

had the right, title and interest over the schedule suit

land. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the

plaintiff.

Issue No. 6:

34. Now let me discuss the issue No. 6. The question

here is whether the plaintiffs were in possession over

the schedule land prior to the date of alleged cause of

action or not. The plaintiffs in their plaint and in

their evidence in affidavit have stated that they

constructed a temporary house in the suit land where they

undertook the function of training of various weaving,

knitting, and preparation of jam, jelly and pickle and

thereby tried to uplift the financial position of poor

and down trodden women folk of their area. That the

temporary house was old and there was no maintenance of

the temporary house so it got damage in a natural

calamities in 17/03/2010. That the defendant No. 1 and 2

in the night of 17/03/2010 illegally trespassed the suit

land of the plaintiffs and erected a temporary shade with

CGI in the suit land. The plaintiffs have adduced

evidence of PW 4 who has stated in his evidence on

Page 18 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


affidavit and in his cross that he has been working as a

worker in the Ghilamara Anchalik Boa-Kata Samabai

Samittee. He stated in his evidence that no one was in

possession of the suit land prior to the plaintiffs.

Whereas the defendants’ and their DWs have stated that

the defendants have been in possession of the suit land

since 1990-1991. The plaintiffs’’ side has adduced

evidence to prove that the suit land has been allotted to

them in the year 2009 but the process to receive the suit

land started from the year 2003 that is, when Deputy

Secretary to the Government of Assam Revenue (Settlement)

Department had put proposal for the allotment of the land

in the name of Ghilamara Anchalik Bua- Kata Samabai

Samittee under Dhakuakhana Sub-division. But the

defendants’ side has not produced any documentary

evidence to prove that the suit land belongs to them or

that they were in possession of the suit land. Though

oral evidences were produced by the Defendants’ side, I

find it difficult to belief. Because of the reason that

the defendants could have easily produced any documents

to prove that they were in possession of the suit land.

The defendants and their witnesses have deposed that they

have been in the suit land since 1990-1991. At least a

Khazana receipt of the suit land would have helped to

defendants to disprove this issue. And if actually the

defendants were in possession of the suit land since

1990-1991 than I think it would not be a difficult task

for the defendants to produce a single documentary

evidence. Even DW 5 who is the Chairman of Raidongia

Mahila Samitte has not adduced any documentary evidence

nor have made any workers or members a witness to prove

her case. In my opinion the plaintiffs’ side have

satisfied this court to come to the conclusion that the

plaintiffs’ were in possession of the suit prior to the

cause of action. Considering the materials available and

the reasons put forwarded by me I hold that the

plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land prior to

the cause of action. Hence, this issue is also decided in

favour of the plaintiff.

Page 19 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


Issue No. 4:

35. Now the issue to be discussed is whether the suit

is bad for non-joinder of parties. The defendants’ side

has argued that the suit is bad for the non-joinder of

parties specially the State of Assam and Raidongia Gaon

Mahila Samity which are necessary parties. I perused the

materials available. The defendants’ side has not adduced

any evidence as to why the State of Assam must be made a

party in the present suit. Also from the evidences of the

defendants I do not find any materials against the State

of Assam. Regarding making Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samity a

party the defendants’ side too has not adduced any

evidence as to prove why the Raidongia Mahila Samittee

must be a party in the present suit. Hence this issue is

also decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.8:

36. It has been decided in Issue No-6 that the

plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit

land. As such unless permanent injunction is granted in

favour of the plaintiffs, the enjoyment of the fruits of

such relief would be/may be at stake. Hence the

plaintiffs are entitled to get decree of permanent

injunction as prayed for. So, the issue in hand is

decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE NO-9: O R D E R & RELIEF:

37. On the face of the decisions reached in the

aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed on

contest with costs and the plaintiffs are entitled to

reliefs in terms of following order-

I) A decree declaring right, title and interest of the

plaintiffs over the suit land as mentioned in the

schedule of the plaint;

II) A decree for recovery of khas possession of the

suit land by demolishing the illegal structures

raised by the defendants and evicting the

defendants from the suit land.

Page 20 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


III) A decree for permanent injunction against the

defendants, their engaged men, agents, workers,

labourer etc.

IV) Costs of the suit.

16. Prepare decree accordingly within 15 days.

17. Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 17th

day of January, 2015.

O R D E R

18. On the face of the decisions reached in the aforesaid

issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.

19. Prepare decree accordingly within 15 days.

20. Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 17th

day of January, 2015.

(Monica Missong)

MUNSIFF Dhakuakhana,

Lakhimpur, Assam.

Page 21 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


APPENDIX

1) Plaintiff’s Witnesses:

I) PW-1: SmtiRenu Goswami;

II) PW-2: Smti Aimoni Chetia

III) PW-3: Smti Phula Prava

IV) PW-4 Sri Jogeswar Hazarika

2) Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

I) Ext-1: Certificate of Registration No. of Ghilamara

Anchalik Boa- Kata Samittee Ltd as Ext-1;

II) Ext-2: Certificate of propoasl for allotment of land to Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Samittee as Ext-2;

III) Ext-3: trace map made by the plaintiffs as Ext-3;

IV) Ext-4: Trace Map produced by the Circle Officer as Ext-4;

V) Ext-5: Certificate of order allotting land to the

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Somobai Samitte as

Ext-5;

VI) Ext-6: Jamabandi Copy exhibited by the plaintiffs’ side as Ext-6

VII) Ext-7: Resolution copy taken in the meeting of

Ghilamara Anchalik Boa Kata Somobai Samittee as

Ext-7.

3) Defendants’ Witnesses- DW-1: Sri Madhab Gohain

DW-2: Sri Manuranjan Bor Gohain

DW-3: Sri Durlab Baruah

DW-4: Sri Khagen Baruah

DW-5: Smti Dipamoni Baruah

4) Defendants’ Exhibits-

a. Ext-Ka: Notice issued to the defendants by the

plaintiff regarding taking of possession of

the suit land by the defendant as Ext- ka .

b. Ext-kha: Notice issued to the Defendant NO.1

in case No. 12/10 as Ext- kha

c. Ext-Ga: Certificate Of Registration of

Raidongia Gaon Mahila Samity

d. Ext-Gha: Notice issued to the Defendant NO. 5

in case No. 12/10 as Ext- Gha

e. Ext-Unga: Order of Case No.12/10 as Ext-Unga

Page 22 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014


Page 23 of 23 in T.S No- 001/2014

f. Ext-Sa: Order in Case No. 20/11 as Ext- Sa

5) Court Witnesses/- Sri Indra Baruah.

A. Court Witness Exhibits-

1. Ext-8: Jamabandi copy exhibited by the

Lat Mondal as Ext-8

2. Ext-9: Trace Map exhibited by the Lat

Mondal as Ext-9

(Monica Missong)

Munsiff , Dhakuakhana, Lakhimpur.

Date post:	13-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngotu
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Aimoni Chetia & 8 Ors versus Madhab Gohain & 6 ORSlakhimpurjudiciary.gov.in/judgment...

Documents