Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010272342024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1354/2025 THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (FFR) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NDCC II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI 2: THE SECRETARY (FFR) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NDCC II BUILDING JAI SINGH ROAD NEW DELHI 3: THE JOINT SECRETARY BM DIVISION MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 4: THE JOINT SECRETARY BM II DIVISION MHA NDCC II BUILDING NEW DELHI VERSUS MANTRI TEA COMPANY PVT LTD AND ORS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CONTINENTAL CHAMBERS 4TH FLOOR 15A HEMANTA BASU SARANI KOLKATA WEST BENGAL REPRENTED BY KAMLESH SINGH RESIDENT/DIRECTOR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE RAM NARAIN SINGH Page No.# 2/8 RESIDENT OF GOVINDA BHAWAN NATIONAL HIGHWAY ROAD SILCHAR PO AND PS SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI 781032 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY TO THE GOVT REVENUE DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER PATHERKANDI PO AND PS PATHARKANDI DIST KARIMGANJ 6:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER PATHERKANDI PO AND PS PATHARKANDI KARIMGANJ ------------ Advocate for : MR H GUPTA Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA appearing for MANTRI TEA COMPANY PVT LTD AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This interlocutory application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section Page No.# 3/8 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the applicants in connection with RFA No. 35/2025 praying for stay of the execution of impugned decree dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 10/2017. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the aforementioned regular first appeal has been filed by the present applicants impugning the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2024 passed in Title Suit No. 10/2017 by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Karimganj. He submits that that the respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was the owner of Pathini Tea Estate comprising of an area of land measuring about 18030 Bigha 4 Kathas and 15 Chataks. Out of the said total area of land of Pathini Tea Estate, an area of land measuring about 584 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks had been encroached by the Government of Bangladesh unauthorizedly. Thereafter, the Government of India and Government of Bangladesh entered into a boundary agreement and steps were taken for ground demarcation and construction of boundary pillars for implementation of International Boundary Agreement, 1974 and 2011 Protocol in respect of erstwhile adversely possessed and un-demarcated areas along with the Indo- Bangladesh boundary pertaining to Assam Sector. In this regard an order dated 05.11.2015 was also published in the official Gazette of India. However, no mention about the encroached land of Pathini Tea Estate by Bangladesh has been made therein and as such several representations were filed by the respondents before the concerned authorities of the Government of India. However, when nothing happened, the respondent instituted a Title Suit No. 10/2017 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Karimganj. Page No.# 4/8 4. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the said suit was contested by the present applicants, however, by the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2024 passed in Title Suit No. 10/2017, the Trial Court decreed the aforesaid suit. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though the Trial Court held that the plaintiff’s company is entitled to get compensation for the land measuring 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks which was taken by the Bangladesh in pursuant to the agreement arrived at in the joint boundary conference between Government of India and Government of Bangladesh, however, it did not quantify the amount of compensation to be given to the respondents. Rather, it directed the Government of India to consider the valuation of the land measuring 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks. The Trial Court directed the Central Government to notify in the Official Gazette of India that the land measuring 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks of plaintiff Company has been taken by Bangladesh during joint boundary conference between Director General of Land Records and Survey, Bangladesh and the Advisor to B.M. Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India held with effect from 29.09.2015 to 01.10.2015.He submits that as the amount of compensation to which the respondent company was found to be entitled was not quantified by the Trial Courtand though a direction was given to the Government of India to provide necessary compensation against the value of the land measuring 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks of plaintiff company, however, it was left to the Central Government to assess the value of the land measuring 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks of plaintiff Company. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though the Page No.# 5/8 compensation was not quantified in the judgment impugned in the connected appeal, however, in the decree which was prepared by the Court on 30thMay 2024 in the Title Suit No. 10/2017, it was erroneously reflected that the plaintiff is entitled to realize a consolidated sum of Rs.148,07,00,626/- (Rupees One Hundred Forty Eight Crore Seven Lakh Six Hundred and Twenty Six). The respondent company has already instituted an execution case and the same is proceeding. The Executing Court has fixed the next date of the said execution case on 6thof January, 2026. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since the decree is apparently contrary to the judgment passed by the Trial Court, the execution case is required to be stayed during the pendency of the connected first appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for grant of stay of execution of the impugned decree on the ground that the Trial Court has categorically held in the impugned judgment that the respondent company is entitled to get compensation for the area of land measuring 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks. 9. He further submits that the stay of execution of the entire decree cannot be granted as the Union Government has been specifically directed by the Trial Court to notify in the official Gazette the fact that the area of land of the respondent company measuring about 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chatakshas been taken by Bangladesh. He, however, fairly submits that though the amount of compensation has not been quantified by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment but fact remains that the land of the respondent company which was Page No.# 6/8 taken by Bangladesh has some value and, therefore, unless a security amount is deposited by the appellants/applicants, the stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree may not be granted. In support of his submission, the senior counsel respondent has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Another Vs. Amazon Technologies Incorporation” reported in “2025 SCC OnLine SC 2153” 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 11. The present applicants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2024 passed in the Title Suit No. 10/2017 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in the connected RFA No. 35/2025. The said appeal is listed in orders column on 7th of January 2026. 12. On a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that though the Trial Court had held that the present applicants are entitled to get compensation against an area of land 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks which has been taken by Bangladesh in pursuant to the agreement arrived at between the Government of India and Government of Bangladesh, however, the Trial Court had not quantified the amount of compensation to be paid by the present applicants, rather it has directed the Central Government to value the aforesaid land and thereafter pay compensation to the decree holder. 13. It also appears that the Trial Court further directed the Central Government to notify in the official Gazette that the land measuring 573 Bighas Page No.# 7/8 2 Kathas 3 Chataks of the plaintiff has been taken by Bangladesh in pursuant to the agreement arrived at in the joint boundary conference between Government of India and Government of Bangladesh. However, it appears that in the decree prepared by the Trial Court on 30th of May 2024 in paragraph No. (b), the amount of compensation will be given to the plaintiff company has been quantified at a sum of Rs.148,07,00,626/- (Rupees One Hundred Forty Eight Crore Seven Lakh Six Hundred and Twenty Six) which is contrary to and without any such finding in the judgment which has been impugned in the connected appeal. As what has been mentioned in paragraph No. (b) of the decree is beyond what has been provided in the impugned judgment, same is required to be stayed. Accordingly, the impugned decree is stayed to the extent whereby it has directed that the plaintiff company is entitled to realize a consolidated sum of Rs.148,07,00,626/- (Rupees One Hundred Forty Eight Crore Seven Lakh Six Hundred and Twenty Six). However, regarding the other parts of the decree, there shall be no stay and the Central Government shall in pursuant to the judgment and decree assess the amount of compensation to be paid to the decree holder and also notify in the official Gazette that the land measuring 573 Bighas 2 Kathas 3 Chataks of the plaintiff's company has been taken by the Bangladesh. 14. Since the stay on the execution of the decree is granted by this order only to the extent which is beyond the scope of the impugned judgment, this Court is not inclined to direct any deposit of security by the applicants. 15. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 8/8 Comparing Assistant