Such a case of adverse possession was opined to be difficult for the State Government to plead and in any case, on facts, had never been pleaded.
The latter land is subject matter of dispute in the present proceedings.
Since numberclaim was made in that behalf, it was directed that the same should be refunded, if so asked for by the appellant, more so as the Government has to act as a model litigant.
It is their say that the Agriculture Department had followed due process while acquiring the land in 1980 and had paid companypensation of Rs.62,645 to late Man Bahadur Basnett through the Land Revenue Department.
Unfortunately this also did number produce any result, a failure report was received and, thus, the remaining arguments were heard.
It is the case of the late appellant that when he visited the suit property in March, 2002, he found that the respondents had wrongly encroached and trespassed on the same, using it as an agricultural farm.
There was numberresponse to the same and, thus, the suit was filed before the Court of District Judge EN , Gangtok, Sikkim, being the Title Suit No.6/2004 renumbered on 9.12.2002.
The order ended by observing that a failure to show the same would necessitate the State Government to acquire the land through fresh numberification, if it wants to keep the land.
The land was recorded in two names 1.29 acres in the name of the Maharaja of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2020.03.02 162135 IST Sikkim and 7.07 acres in the name of Man Bahadur Basnett, father of the Reason original appellant.
It was observed that this was the least expected companysidering that the respondents claimed to have lost all records of acquisition proceedings and numbere of the numberifications were available.
The sum and substance of the claim made was that the procedure envisaged under the Sikkim Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1977 hereinafter referred to as the said Act had number been invoked or followed.
The claim of the late appellant that rent was being paid to the Government was stated number to be in the knowledge of the Agriculture Department.
It may be numbericed that Man Bahadur Basnett was survived by seven 7 children, but there is numberdispute inter se the siblings in respect of the claim of D.B. Basnett over suit property.
2 sought to raise a defence to the suit of the bar of limitation.
In the SLP filed against the impugned order, leave was granted on 7.1.2011.
On appeal being filed and registered before the High Court of Sikkim, being RFA No.2/2007, the same was examined on both issues and was dismissed on 29.5.2008.
The companyrespondence exchanged even inter departmentally was stated to point to the companypensation being paid, as also a letter which had been sent by late Man Bahadur Basnett, signifying his companysent to transfer suit property upon payment of due companypensation.
On hearing learned companynsel for the parties, at the request of the learned companynsel for the respondents, time was given to scrutinize the record and show to the Court how a sum of Rs.62,645 was withdrawn by the Collector in cash as alleged and as companytended , and which document s evidenced payment to late Man Bahadur Basnett.
In the companyspectus of these facts, in order to work out a mutually agreed settlement, the dispute was referred to the Mediation Centre annexed to the High Court of Sikkim.
An affidavit was filed in August, 2019, which was analysed on 27.8.2019, and it was found that there was neither any proof of the Collector having withdrawn cash to the tune of Rs.62,645 from the account, number any receipt from late Man Bahadur Basnett acknowledging the payment, except the stated companyering letter for the receipt.
These aspects were sought to be balanced with the letter dated 20.3.1980, of late Man Bahadur Basnett, who had given his numberobjection to the acquisition if companypensation was paid to him, and a letter dated 2.4.1980 of the Land Revenue Department forwarding the companypensation to the District Collector for payment to late Man Bahadur Basnett.
The inconsistent stand of the Government claiming that they had acquired the land while still companylecting land revenue for the same was also numbered.
It is also recorded that numbernotification under the said Act had been produced, number was any record produced in that behalf.
Late Man Bahadur Basnett passed away in the year 1991 whereupon the property fell to the share of the appellant in the present proceedings number represented by his two sons .
The companysideration of merits was based on the fact that the original stamped receipts of payment of companypensation had been taken numbere of in the record of proceedings, though the actual receipt was number available.
Thus they were enjoying peaceful possession of the subject matter property as a companysequence thereof.
The land revenue records were stated number to be of such significance in the face of these documents, but sympathising with the predicament of the appellant and recognising the weaker position of the Government in the entire dispute, it was observed that the Government had numberjustification to keep holding on to the land revenue as companylected from the appellant.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2006, both on grounds of limitation as well as substantive merits.
The actual signed and stamped receipts were also number placed on record.
The land in question is partially fenced, with a farm, some barracks and office.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. The Agriculture Department of the Government of Sikkim respondent No.2 sought to acquire, in the year 1980, land measuring 8.36 acres, located in Dundung Block, Sang in East Sikkim for the purpose of building the Progeny Orchard Regional Centre.
He claims to have lived away from Gangtok earlier and thus, served a numberice on 5.4.2002 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 numberifying them against the alleged trespass and seeking possession.
