RSA 63/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the judgment and order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the lea rned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 32/2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Dhubri in Title Suit No. 166/92. By the judgment impugned in the instant appeal the dec ision of the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant/ plaintiff was affirmed. I have heard Mr GP Bhowmick, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr RC Das, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2(1) to 2(4). Mr T Islam, learned Stat e counsel appeared for respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent No.3 tho ugh the names of his learned counsel are shown in the cause list. The pleaded case of the appellant/ plaintiff is that his father Dhalpath al Sk. was a tenant under the Jotdar Kailash Prodhani and Bhupen Ch. Prodhani in respect of land measuring 6B-1K-1 Gonda under Gauripur A/E in Collectors Touzi Estate No.2 at Dehi Dimakuri in Mouza Tokrechara, Pargana Ghula and Touzi No. 28 5 on payment of due land revenue. On the death of his father, the appellant/ pla intiff succeeded to his right as a tenant in the aforementioned land and continu ed to be in possession thereof. During the settlement operation in the district during 1961-62 a plot of land measuring 5B-4K-6Ls had been recorded in the name of the appellant/plaintiff’s father along with him (appellant/ plaintiff) and ot hers. However, a portion of the original 6B-1K-1Gonda of land was excluded and d eclared as khas land under Dag No. 604 covered by Khatian No.1. The lands measur ing 5B-4K-6Ls and 1K-17Ls were described in Schedule-A and B to the plaint. Acco rding to the appellant/ plaintiff, this conversion of a portion of the land over which he had possession as khas land came to his notice when the original defen dant No.2 in the suit obstructed a survey thereof and removed bamboos therefrom on 16/17.2.1992 disclosing that he had obtained a declaration of possession in h is favour made in Misc. Case No. 673/82 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. filed against the respondent No.3/ defendant No.3. In this background the appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration o f his right, title and interest in the Schedule-B land along with a prayer for c orrection of the records in connection therewith. He also prayed for khas posses sion thereof with a prayer for permanent injunction. Whereas the suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendant No.3, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by their separat e written statements resisted the suit contending inter alia that the same was b arred under Section 154A(i) of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for shor t, hereinafter referred to as ’the Regulation’) and also denying his right, titl e and interest in and possession over the suit land. Issues were framed and both the parties adduced evidence. The Amin Commissioner who had conducted survey of the suit land was also examined. As the defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the suit his heirs i.e. the present respondent Nos. 2(1) to 2(4) were brough t on record. The learned Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence and the pleadings on record dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the appellant/ p laintiff having met the same fate, he is before this Court seeking redress. Mr Bhowmick has urged that as it is apparent from the materials on record that i nitially the appellant/plaintiff’s father and then he(appellant/ plaintiff) had been settled with the land measuring 6B-1K-1Gonda by the State Government follow ing acquisition thereof under the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 195 1 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) for which a khatian was issu ed, the learned Courts below have erred on a substantial question of law in hold ing to the contrary. According to him, as the report of the Amin Commissioner pr oved beyond doubt the continuous possession of the suit land by the appellant/ p laintiff, the impugned judgment and order by which the suit had been dismissed w arrants interference in the instant appeal. Mr Das per contra has argued that it being evident from a perusal of the particu lars of the land described in Schedule-A and B to the plaint that the appellant/ plaintiff’s plea that both these plots constituted 6B-1K-1Gonda of the land cla imed to have been settled with his father and then with him by the Government is belied thereby, the very substratum of the suit being non-existent, the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in dismissing the suit. Questioning the s ettlement of the land measuring 6B-1K-1Gonda in favour of the appellant/ plainti ff at any point of time, the learned counsel has argued that the report of the A min Commissioner to the effect that he had been in possession of the suit land a s described in Schedule-B thereof, does not advance his case for the purpose of his right, title and interest therein. The pleadings as available and the judgments and orders of the learned C ourts below have been perused. It is evident that the appellant/ plaintiff’s cla im is based on settlement of 6B-1K-1Gonda of land in favour of his father and th ereafter with him by the Government as tenant under it. Mr Bhowmick has sought t o trace this right to Section 6(4) of the Act and also consolidate the same by r elying on the report of the Amin Commissioner vis-à-vis the aspect of possession . Admittedly, the appellant/ plaintiff has not adduced any documentary evi dence in support of settlement of the aforesaid plot of land either in his favou r or in favour of his father. His oral testimony in this regard, in the opinion of this Court, is not of sufficient probative value to sustain this claim of his . Though the materials on record disclose that the Amin Commissioner on a survey of the suit land has endorsed his possession thereof, the same per se in absence of any unimpeachable evidence regarding settlement of 6B-1K-1Gonda of l and in his favour by the Government after the acquisition thereof by it under th e Act is of no avail to him. A comparison of the description of the plots of lan d under Schedule-A and B to the plaint also prima facie demonstrates that those are not adjacent to each other. This demolishes the appellant/plaintiff’s case t hat the land described in Schedule-B to the plaint is an integral part of the bi gger plot of land measuring 6B-1K-1Gonda settled with him by the Government. On an analysis of the reasons recorded by the learned Courts below, in t he opinion of this Court, the conclusions reached cannot be repudiated as absurd or in defiance of logic. Both these judgments, on a conjoint reading, present c oncurrent findings of facts. With the limited scope of interference in the exerc ise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order does not call for any judicial int ervention at this end. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.