*CIVIL COURT JUDGMENT*
PRONOUNCED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), PAKYONG- Ms. Urvashi Pradhan.
*Case Summary* Title Suit No. 01 of 2024 ( Uday Kumar Pandey vs Bijay Kumar Pandey and Ors.)
Gangtok,1st August :The plaintiff (Mr. Uday Pandey), a nephew of late Lt. Gopal Pandey, claimed equal share in the Scheduled property, a two-storied wooden house, garden, and land in Rhenock Bazar, Pakyong District, Sikkim. The plaintiff alleged that Gopal Pandey purchased the property and, as the only surviving legal heirs, he and the defendant (Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey) are entitled to equal shares.
*Court’s Decision*
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. Key findings include:
1. *Property not purchased, but allotted*: The court found that the property was allotted to Gopal Pandey by the Urban Development and Housing Department (UDHD), not purchased.
2. *Lack of documentation*: The plaintiff failed to provide documents to establish the basis of the allotted site (temporary or permanent).
3. *Nephew not included in definition of family*: The court noted that the Sikkim Allotment of House Sites and Construction of Buildings (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985, and The Sikkim Regulation of Transfer of Land Act, 2005, do not include nephews in the definition of “family” for transferring allotted land.
4. *Plaintiff’s ineligibility*: The plaintiff admitted to not being a Sikkim Subject, not holding a Certificate of Identification, and not possessing a Residential Certificate, which are prerequisites for acquiring immovable property in Sikkim.
The court also held that regardless of whether the allotment of Site to Gopal Pandey was on temporary or permanent basis, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the suit property. The reasons are:
1. *Temporary Permission*: If the site was alloted on temporary basis, it would revert to the Government of Sikkim upon Gopal Pandey’s death, as per Sikkim Allotment of Houses Sites Sites and Construction of Buildings (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985 and its allied rules published under Notification in Sikkim Government Gazette.
2. *Permanent Permission*: If the site was allotted on permanent basis to Gopal Pandey, the plaintiff would still not be entitled to the property because:
– He doesn’t fall within the definition of “family” under the Sikkim Allotment of Houses Sites Sites and Construction of Buildings (Regulation and Control) Act, 1985; and The Sikkim Regulation of Transfer of Land Act, 2005.
– He lacks the necessary documents (Sikkim Subject, Certificate of Identification, and/or Residential Certificate) required for acquiring immovable property in Sikkim.
Thereby emphasizing that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statutory framework governing land allotment and transfer in Sikkim.
*Conclusion*
The court declared the partition deed executed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 invalid, ruling that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the Scheduled property. The judgment upholds the State’s land allotment laws and regulations governing property transactions in Sikkim.
