GANGTOK, India, June 5 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 5:
1. The Defendants No.2 and 3 jointly, Defendants No.4 and 5 jointly, Defendant No.6 individually and Defendant No.7 individually (Respondents No.2 and 3, Respondents No.4 and 5, Respondent No.6 and Respondent No.7 herein), filed applications respectively, under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), with Defendants No.6 and 7 specifically mentioning the provision of sub-Rule (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, before the Learned Principal District Judge, Gangtok, in Title Suit No.32 of 2022, seeking rejection of the Plaint filed by the Plaintiff (Appellant herein). The Learned Court vide the impugned Order, dated 14-09-2023, concluded that although the Plaint disclosed a cause of action, but it was barred by the law of limitation and rejected the Plaint. Aggrieved thereof, the Plaintiff/ Appellant is before this Court assailing the Order.
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their litigative status before the Learned Trial Court.
3. To comprehend the matter in its correct perspective, a brief summation of facts are essential. The Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration, recovery of possession, injunction and other consequential reliefs valued at rs 50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crores) only, before the Court (supra). The Plaintiff and Defendant No.8 are brothers. The Plaintiffs case is that when he was a minor, his father, Late Churamani Sharma had sold an area measuring 2.30 acres, bearing Plot No.571, situated at West Pendam Block, Gangtok District, Sikkim, to Defendant No.2, the Horticulture Department, Government of Sikkim. His father passed in the year 1989. From 2012 to 2018 when the Defendant No.8 was posted as Assistant Engineer at Pakyong District, he was told by one Churamani Dhakal that, papers regarding land, belonging to their father "Churamani Sharma" was sent to him by the Defendant No.2, mistaking him to be Churamani Sharma. As he had cordial relations with Churamani Sharma, he informed his namesake of the above facts. Their father, however suffered a stroke and consequent speech impairment, but prior in time he had mentioned to the Plaintiff that compensation had not been paid to him by Defendant No.2 for the property acquired (supra) from him, although compensation for standing crops had been paid. Pursuant to the information from Churamani Dhakal, Defendant No.8 made enquiries relating to the land acquisition of their father and payment of compensation thereof. After wending through official procedure, including an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Defendant No.3, a joint verification of the records was carried out with the concerned officials of the Defendant No.2, Defendant No.4 and the Defendant No.8 on 20-12-2019. The records with Defendant No.3 revealed that, the property was recorded in their late fathers name during 1950-52 as Plot No.571 measuring 2.30 acres. During 1979- 80 the said landed property was re-numbered as Plot No.2233, 2229/P, 2234/p and 2235/p, of which only Plot No.2233, measuring a total area of 1.60 acres, was found to be recorded in the name of the Defendant No.2. The other three plot numbers were found to be recorded in the name of the private Defendants No.6 and 7. It was also found that, vide communication dated 16-03-1997, of the then Secretary, Land Revenue Department, to the District Collector, a sum of rs 3,910/- (Rupees three thousand and ten) only, was to be disbursed to the Plaintiffs father. Further, communication dated 18- 09-1976 of the Defendant No.3, to the Defendant No.4, reflected the requirement to acquire the land of Churamani Sharma, bearing Plot No.571, measuring 2.30 acres. The remarks therein indicated that, the property had already been handed over to the Defendant No.2. Communication dated 08-02-1977, addressed to Churamani Sharma, by the District Collector, indicated that rs 13,800/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and eight hundred) only, had been sanctioned in favour of Churamani Sharma for the land transaction, directing him to collect the same from the office of the District Collector. The Defendant No.5 was however unable to furnish any receipt of payment, signed by the Plaintiffs father for the land transaction as the above communications are not receipts of payment of compensation. Hence, the Suit.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff before this Court urged that the inability of the Department to furnish any documentary evidence, indicates non-payment for the land acquisition, although compensation for the standing crops thereon was duly received by the Plaintiffs father. That, the Learned Trial Court was of the view that the Plaintiff despite being a major in the year 1989 when his father passed, failed to take steps with regard to the claims now being advanced. That, this is an erroneous assumption as knowledge of the non-payment arose only in 2018, after Churamani Dhakal told the Defendant No.8 of it. Subsequent thereto, after making necessary enquiries the Suit was filed in 2023. To fortify his submissions, Learned Counsel drew strength from the decision of Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others1 , wherein the Supreme Court observed that, Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of or procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation though not expressly included in Article 300A can be inferred. Hence, the impugned Order be set aside and the Suit be ordered to be taken to its logical conclusion.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the StateRespondents No.1 to 5, urged that, the Plaintiff was about 22 years old in 1989 and well aware that his father had received the compensation, despite which the Plaint has been filed 47 years later, which is an inordinate delay, the cause of action having arisen in 1976-77 after which the land has been in continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the Defendants No.2 and 3 till date. Hence, the Suit being barred by limitation was correctly dismissed.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/200100000042024_10.pdf
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
