AGARTALA, India, June 15 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on May 14:

1. This RSA is preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dt. 16.08.2024 of the District Judge, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2022 confirming the judgment dated 26.09.2022 of the Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Court No.1, Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in TS 10/2019.

2. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit.

3. They had filed the said suit to declare their right, title and interest over the A schedule land; for recovery of possession of B schedule land from defendant No.1 by evicting him from the said land and by removing all sorts of obstruction/construction erected thereon; and also for recovery of possession of C schedule land from defendant No.2 by evicting the defendant No.2 therefrom by removing all sorts of obstruction/construction erected thereon.

4. It is not in dispute that the extent of the A schedule land is 2.09 acres, and both B schedule land (3 gandas) and C schedule land (5 gandas) are both part of the A schedule land. The case of the plaintiffs/appellants:

5. The plaintiffs are legal heirs of Lt. Laipada Debbarma and appellant No.1 is his wife.

6. Lt. Laipada Debbarma and the appellant No.1 were accorded sanction of allotment of 2.14 acres through allotment order No. 44/199 dated 04.11.1997 which was also recorded in Sabek Khatian No. 469 of Mouja Laxmipur, Tehsil Gandacherra appertaining to Sabek Plot No. 1052/1433 and 1052/1434 for of which 0.05 acres had been acquired by the Government of Tripura for the purpose of construction of Gandacherra-Ramnagar road. The balance 2.09 acres is the A schedule land.

7. The plaintiffs contended in the plaint that after revisonal survey operation, the allotted land of the plaintiff No.1 and Laipada Debbarma was recorded in finally published Khatian No. 267 of Mouja Laxmipur, Tehsil Gandacherra appertaining to Hal Plot No. 1797, 1798 & 1799, CS plot No. 1052/1434(p), 1052/1433 (p) and 1052(p) which is described in the A Schedule.

8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had good relationship with one Surendra Reang residing in the same locality and the said person had approached them in December, 2016 for permitting the defendants to reside for about a year and a half in a part of A Schedule land which had been fallow and vacant by constructing dwelling hut on condition that they would handover vacant peaceful possession to the plaintiffs after completion of the said period of one and half years, as they were landless poor. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claim that they handed over the B Schedule suit land which was part of the A Schedule suit land to Defendant No.1 and C schedule suit land which was also part of A Schedule suit land to Defendant No.2 on the intervention of the said Surendra Reang and that the two defendants with the permission of the plaintiffs, had constructed dwelling huts over the B and C schedule suit land, respectively.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xwVfEhLz%2FCAJ1crkeYAYRCV3coRXB0zhgXrNDmEaJOJO&caseno=RSA/8/2025&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010006812025&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.