Page No.# 1/37

GAHC030007122023

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : RFA/53/2023

Union of India and Anr.

R/b The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New

Delhi - 1100112: The Chief Engineer

Project Pushpak

BR

VERSUS

Smt. Saithangpuii Sailo and 5 Ors.

D/o Biakthuama (L)

R/o Tuikual North, Aizawl2:Sh. Thanzauva (L)

3:The State of Mizoram r/b The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram

4:The Director

Land Revenue and Settlement Department

5:Sh. D. Lalrintluanga

6:Sh. Bialzauva (L) r/b his wife and Legal Representative Smt. Lalzamliani Sail

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Zairemsangpuii, CGC

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. for R1

BEFORE

Page No.# 2/37

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

Advocate for the appellants : Ms. Zairemsangpuii, CGC

Advocates for respondent No. 1 : Mr. C. Lalramzauva, Sr. Adv

Mr. Zoramchhana, Adv.

Advocates for respondent No. 2 : Mr. L.H.Lianhrima, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, Adv

Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Ms. Lalnunhlui, GA

Date on which judgment is reserved : 22.09.2025

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.02.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the

operative part of the judgment? : N/A

Whether the full judgment has been

Pronounced ? : Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the appellants. Also heard Mr.

C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1, assisted by Mr.

Zoramchhana, learned counsel and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel

for respondent No. 2, assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli and Ms. Lalnunhlui,

learned Government advocate for the State respondents.

Page No.# 3/37

2. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 17.05.2023

passed by the Senior Civil Judge-I in Civil Suit No. 59/2016, wherein, the

learned Trial Court had decreed for the appellants to hand over vacant and

peaceful possession of the disputed land to the respondent No. 1. The

appellants were also directed to deposit a rental compensation amounting to Rs.

8,70,1699/- for a period from 01.06.1963 to 31.12.2008 as already assessed by

the State Government and make further assessment from 01.01.2009 till date,

by setting aside the Order dated 24.11.2015 issued by the State Government.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the present respondent No. 1, being the

plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 59/2016, had filed the suit by initially arraying the

present respondent No. 2 (Thanzauva) as defendant No. 1 and the present

State respondent Nos. 3 & 4 as State defendants Nos. 2 & 3 and Sh. D.

Lalrintluanga and Sh. Bialzauva (L) represented by his wife Lalzamliani Sailo

present Proforma Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 as Proforma Defendant Nos. 4 & 5, by

challenging the order of cancellation of Permit No. 191/1974 by the defendant

No. 2 (Revenue Department) vide impugned Order dated 24.11.2015.

4. The plaintiffs’ (present respondent No. 1) case in Civil Suit No. 59/2016,

was that Shri Liantudaia (L) was allotted landed property at Zemabawk, initially

covered by Permit No. 682/1963, which he had bifurcated into two Permits viz.,

Page No.# 4/37

Permit No. 190/1974 and Permit No. 191/1974. The dispute is over the landed

property covered by Permit No. 191/1974. Shri. Bialzauva, proforma defendant

Nos. 5, had purchased a portion of the land covered by Permit No. 191/1974

and transfer of the land was effected on 10.06.1977. After the death of

Liantudaia, on 20.02.1986, his son the Defendant No.1/ present respondent No.

2 (Thanzauva) had obtained Heirship Certificate in respect of all the properties

left behind by his late father. After obtaining the said Heirship Certificate, the

Defendant No. 1 (Thanzauva) had sold a portion of his land lying outside the

BRTF fencing Aizawl to Lunglei road covered by Permit No. 191/1974 to the

Plaintiff (present respondent No. 1) vide "Inremna Thuthlung" dated

12.04.2002. At the same time, the rest of the land covered by Permit No.

191/1974 was under the occupation of the BRTF and as the Defendant No. 1

was unable to take physical possession of the said land, he had submitted a

letter dated 06.06.2002 to the Chief Secretary, Mizoram, Aizawl wherein he

prayed for issuance of new land Pass in respect of Permit No. 191/1974 as per

the boundaries which are reflected in the said Permit. In the mean time, the

Defendant No. 3 had forwarded a letter dated 10.05.2002 to the Defendant No.

2 wherein it was stated inter alia that “as per the report submitted on

11.09.1989, it was stated that Pu Liantudaia was allotted Garden Pass under

Permit No. 682/63 by the defunct District Council Authority which was bifurcated

Page No.# 5/37

into 2 passes vide Permit No. 190/1974 covering an area 4 1/2 Bighas and

Permit 191/74 covering 2 Bighas of land. The report further stated that

Liantudaia sold his Periodic Patta No. 191/1974 to Pu.Bialzauva and transfer of

the land was effected on 10.06.1977. Since, Liantudaia sold his Periodic Patta

No. 191/1974, he has no more claim as ownership right goes to

Pu Bialzauva. With regards to connection of area of land under Permit No.

191/1974 from Bighas to 24.98 Bighas, it was decided vide Office Memorandum

No. /B-84/Pt-II(A)/20 (A) dated 26.08.1991 (copy enclosed) that henceforth,

only the area allotted as shown in the original paper be allowed for conversion

into permanent settlement even if the boundary description covers the area. In

compliance with the above instruction, claim of land for which Revenue Taxes

are paid only can be considered by the Government. In this case also, claim of

land for compensation in favor of Pu. Bialzauva was considered for which taxes

are paid by the land owner. In view of above, as per the Land Revenue Acts and

Rules pointed out above, claim of Pu H.Thanzauva S/o Liantudaia(L) may be

treated as closed chapter.”

5. After the Defendant No.1 (H. Thanzauva) came to learn of the said letter,

he had submitted a letter dated 24.6.2002 whereby he informed the Defendant

No. 2 that only a small portion of land was sold to the Defendant No.5 and that

Page No.# 6/37

his late father did not sell the entire land covered by Permit No. 191/1974. That

this fact can be duly ascertained by comparing the boundary description of the

LSC No. 103/1985 belonging to Defendant No. 5 and the boundary description

of Permit No. 191/1974. Consequently, the State Defendants considered the

letter dated 24.06.2002 and the Defendant No. 1 was informed vide letter dated

06.11.2002 that his application for conversion of Permit No. 191/1974 into

House Site was approved by the Revenue Authorities vide letter dated

10.10.2002 to the extent of 2 bighas since the remaining area had been

occupied by BRTF. As the land covered by Permit No. 191/1974, excluding the

areas settled in favour of the Defendants Nos. 4 & 5, was still under the

occupation of the BRTF, the Defendant No.1 had taken the help of the Plaintiff

to take back possession of his land. In the meantime, on the basis of the report

of a joint verification team, the area of land covered by Permit No. 191/1974

was corrected from 2 bighas to 29.48 bighas and on the approval of the

Government vide Govt. Letter No.K.53011/214/00-REV/Vol-II dt.5/11/2003,

Permit No. 191/1974 was re-issued with an area of 29.48 bighas vide Memo

No.15013/2/98-DC(A) dt.17/11/2003.

6. The plaintiff’s case was also that the Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiff had

executed Deed of Agreement dated 24.10.2003 wherein the Defendant agreed

to give 17.16 bighas of land covered under Permit No. 191/1974 to the Plaintiff

Page No.# 7/37

if possession was taken back from the BRTF and had also executed the

Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2003 authorizing the Plaintiff to take

back possession of land from the Defendants BRTF, and Defendant No.1 again

sold his land covered by Permit No. 191 of 1974 vide Sale Deed dated

19.11.2013 to the plaintiff. However, the Defendant No. 1 had served notice u/s

80 CPC to the Defendants Nos. 2&3 claiming right and title over Permit No.

191/1974 and due to the said Legal Notice, the Defendants Nos. 2 & 3, in order

to verify the authenticity of the said Sale Deed dated 19.11.2013, forwarded the

said Sale Deed and other documents to the Joint Director, Forensic Science

Laboratory, whereby the reports of the hand-writing examination disclosed that

the signature of the Defendant No. 1 in all the documents belonged to him.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff No. 1 had filed W.P.(C) No. 48/2015 against the

Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, which was disposed of at motion stage vide Order dated

01.05.2015 wherein the Defendant No. 3 was directed to dispose of the

representation of the Plaintiff No. 1 where she had prayed for the Defendant

Nos. 2 & 3 to continue processing conversion and partition of Permit No.

191/1974 into LSCs as already allowed. However, the same was not complied

with, and as such, the Plaintiff No. 1 had filed a Contempt Petition No. 16 of

2015, which was disposed of when the Defendant No. 2 issued the Order dated

24.11.2015. The Order dated 24.11.2015 had relied on the letter dated

Page No.# 8/37

10.05.2002 issued by the Revenue department, and took the stand that the

entire land covered by Permit No. 191/1974 was already converted into P.Patta

No. 1/1977 and later mutated into LSC No. 103/1985 in favour of Bialzauva (the

Proforma Defendant No.5) and cancelled the Permit No. 191/1974, and held

that the same was the declared to be a vacant land and already allotted to

BRTF. Aggrieved, the Plaintiffs had filed the Civil Suit No. 59/2016.

7. Both the parties i.e., the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5, had adduced

their evidence and Civil Suit was disposed of on dated 05.04.2019 wherein, it

was held that, the Order dated 24.11.2015 was illegal and void and the

cancellation of the Permit No. 191/1974 was set aside and quashed, and Permit

No. 191/1974 which was re-issued on 17.11.2003 with the approval of the Govt.

was revived. The Defendant No.2 &3 were directed to make necessary

corrections with regard to Permit No. 191/1974 and to demarcate the land

covered by the said Permit located at Zemabawk, Aizawl and to bifurcate them

into two equal halves in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 and the Defendant No.1.

8. However, since the present appellants were not a party in Civil Suit No.

59/2016, this court in RFA No. 16/2020, in its order dated 16.09.2021, had

remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to implead

the present appellants as parties to the suit.

Page No.# 9/37

9. Accordingly, in compliance with the Judgment and Order dated

16.09.2021, the matter was considered again by the learned Trial Court by

impleading the present appellants as defendant Nos. 6 & 7. The learned Trial

Court, on consideration of the pleadings of both the parties framed the following

issues:

1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style.

2) Whether there is any cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and

against the Defendants.

3) Whether the suit barred by limitation, doctrine of estoppels and

acquiescence.

4) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the court fees or not.

5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of necessary parties.

6) Whether the plaintiff failed to comply with Section 80 of CPC or not.

7) Whether the Defendant No. 1 had inherited Permit No.

SDCC/HC- 134/2000/605-7 dated 14.03.2000 or not.

8) Whether the Defendant No. 1 had sold his land covered by Permit

Page No.# 10/37

No. 191/74 to the Plaintiffs at any point of time by executing

‘Inremna Thuthlung’ dated 12.04.2002 and Sale Deed dated 19.11.2013. If so,

whether the said ‘Inremna Thuthlung’ and the said Sale Deed are valid in

the eye of the law.

9) Whether Permit No. 191/74 re-issued on 17.11.2003 by the State

Defendants is valid or not.

10) Whether the area and boundary of LSC No. 103/85 in the name of Shri.

Bialzauva (Proforma Defendant No. 5) covers the entire area of the land

covered by Permit No. 191/74.

11) Whether the Power of Attorney dated 24.10.2003 is valid or not.

12) Whether the Deed of Agreement dated 24.10.2003 is valid or not.

13) Whether the expert opinion of handwriting vide opinion No.

FSL/741/D(AZL)-34/15 dated 11.09.2015 is acceptable or sustainable in

the eye of law.

14) Whether the Order dated 24.11.2005 cancelling Permit No. 191/74

is illegal, null and void or not.

Page No.# 11/37

15) Whether the Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 occupied Permit No. 191 of 1974

without acquiring the same.

16) Whether the Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 are liable to pay rental

compensation to the Plaintiff.

17) Whether the Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 should hand over vacant and

peaceful possession of Permit No. 191/1974 if the same, is not acquired as per

law.

18) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed, if so, to what

extent.

10. During the course of the subsequent proceeding, the evidence of the

plaintiff/present respondent No. 1 was again recorded while the State

defendants/present respondent Nos. 3 to 5 preferred not to adduce any

additional evidence other than what was recorded during the earlier

proceedings. The defendant No. 1/present respondent No. 2 adduced further

evidence and the defendant Nos. 6 & 7/present appellants had adduced their

evidence by producing two defendant witnesses.

After hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court had decided all the

Page No.# 12/37

issues in favour of the present respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and vide its Judgment &

Order dated 17.05.2023 decreed as follows:-

i) That the Order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Defendant No. 2 was

declared as illegal, null and void and upheld the validity of the restored Permit

No. 191/1974 which was re-issued on 17.11.2003 with the approval of the

Government.

ii) the entire land covered by Permit No. 191/1974 with an area of 20.2 bighas

as per spot verification in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1

bifurcating in equal halves, with a direction to the Defendants Nos. 2 & 3 to

bifurcate the suit land in the names of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1.

iii) The Defendants Nos. 6 & 7 were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful

possession of the said land to the Plaintiff within a period of 3 months or to

proceed for acquisition of the same within a further period of 3 months.

iv) Defendants Nos. 6 & 7 were directed to deposit rental compensation

amounting to Rs. 8,70,01,699/- for the period and from 01.06.1963 -31.12.2008 as already assessed by the State Govt. within a period of 3 months

and to make further assessment of rental compensation to be made by the

Defendants Nos. 2 & 3 for the period from 01.01.2009 till date or till the land is

acquired and the same is to be deposited within a period of 90 days after

Page No.# 13/37

making of the assessment.

Hence, the appeal.

11. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC submitted that the learned Trial Court

had failed to taken into account the oral as well as the documentary evidences

adduced by the defendants witnesses in Civil Suit No. 59/2016. She submitted

that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in the Civil Suit had submitted her re-cast

plaint without filing any Misc. Application for amendment of the plaint, which

was beyond the order of this court in RFA No. 16/2020 dated 16.09.2021. She

stated that, in the recast plaint, the respondent No. 1 had changed almost all

the stand taken by her in her previous plaint by incorporating new

developments which would strengthen her case and claimed area change from

27 bighas – 25 bighas. She also submitted that the name of Lalnunnemi Sailo

was left out in the recast plaint without mentioning any reason. She also

submitted that the respondent No. 1 has already submitted her examination-in-

chief which was based on her old plaint and the same was cross examine by the

counsel for the defendant. However, later on after recast plaint was made, she

submitted her examination in chief again which was based on her recast plaint.

However, the learned Trial Court did not decide examination-in-chief the court

would relied on, which is a violation of Order dated 16.09.2021 passed in RFA

Page No.# 14/37

No. 16/2020.

12. The learned CGC also submitted that the respondent No. 1/Plaintiff had 4

witnesses including herself and they have submitted the examination-in-chief

based on the previous plaint of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1. The learned Trial

Court failed to clarify whether the court had relied upon the evidence already

taken prior to the implement of the present appellants/ Union of India as

respondent Nos. 6 & 7. The State Govt. has produced two witnesses namely,

Smt. Martin Lalhlupuii, Under Secretary, Revenue Department and Shri.

Rinzamlova, Joint Director of Survey, Revenue Department, who have submitted

the examination-in-chief and also crossed examine. However, the said witnessed

adduced the evidence based on the old plaint and the old written statement, but

the learned Trial Court did not decide or passed any order regarding which part

of portion of evidence taken prior to the previous plaint would be retained and

relied on since the old plaint and the recast plaint differ from each other.

13. The learned CGC further submitted that the learned Trial Court had

wrongly decided the issue No.3 i.e.,“whether the suit is barred by

the limitation doctrine of Estoppel and Perpetuities”.

The learned CGC submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate

the fact that the suit was filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in Civil Suit No.

Page No.# 15/37

59/2016 after a lapse of 53 years from the date of occupation of the land in

question by the Union of India and after 46 years from the date of

Departmental Pass No. 4/1970 and also after 27 years after the Union of India

had acquired the land in 1989. The suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is

therefore barred by limitation. However, this point was not considered by the

learned Trial Court. The learned CGC in support of her submission cited the case

of J. Thanzama Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., wherein the Apex Court held

that the Indian Limitation Act is applicable in the State of Mizoram.

14. The learned CGC further submitted that the learned Trial Court had

wrongly decided the issue that the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 had sold

his land covered by Permit No. 191/1974 to the respondent No. 1/plaintiff by

executing “Inremna thuthlung” dated 14.04.2002 and Sale Deed dated

19.11.2013. She submitted that there are contradictions in the examination-in-

chief and cross examination of the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 which

shows how unreliable the witness is, however, the learned Trial Court did not

take into account the contradictory statements made by respondent No.

2/defendant No. 1-Sh. Lalthanzauva. She submitted that it is clear that he did

not come to the court with clean hands.

In support of her submission, the learned CGC relied on the judgments of

Page No.# 16/37

the Apex Court in Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Limited Vs.

Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited (In

Liquidation) & Ors., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 707 and Union of India &

Ors. Vs. N. Murugesan & Ors., reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25, wherein the

Apex Court held that a party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, fast and

loose or appropriate and reprobate whenever they so desired. That a litigant

can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stand

in the same case. She also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramjas

Foundation & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010) 14 SCC

38, wherein the Apex Court held that the principal that a person who does not

come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of

his grievance and is not entitled to any relief.

15. The learned CGC further submitted that the Trial Court had erred in

deciding that the boundary of LSC No. 103/1985 in the name of Sh. Bialzauva

(Proforma defendant No. 5 in the Civil Suit) does not cover the entire area of

the land covered by Permit No. 191/1974. The learned CGC pointed out that

when the State defendant filed their written statement, it was clearly mentioned

that the LSC No. 103 /1985 in the name of Sh. Bialzauva covers the entire area

of land covered by Permit No. 191/1974 and further the Heirship Certificate for

the suit land issued to the plaint is not valid as Pu Liantudaia no longer has the

Page No.# 17/37

ownership right over the suit land in the year 2000. This fact was supported by

the two witnesses for the State defendant namely, Smt. Martin Lalhlupuii, Under

Secretary, LR&S and Sh. Rinzamlova, Joint Director of Survey Revenue

Department. She also submitted that in the LSC No. 103/1985 at the last

paragraph it was written that “This will supersede Periodic Patta No. 1/1977 and

a house site LSC is prepared from this”. The LSC itself clearly reveals that the

Permit No. 191/1974 which was later on converted into Periodic Patta No.

1/1977 and again converted into LSC No. 109 of 1985 superseded Periodic Patta

No. 1/1977 (arising out of Permit No. 191/1974).

16. The learned CGC thus submitted that the Permit No. 191/1974 was already

converted into Periodic Patta No. 1/1977 (area 2 bighas) and Sh. Liantudaia

again sold his Periodic Patta No. 1/1977 to Sh. F. Bialzauva and the mutation

was accordingly done on 10.06.1977 which was again converted into LSC No.

103/1985 in favour of Sh. F. Bialzauva. Thus, the LSC No. 103/1985 of Sh. F.

Bialzauva had been acquired for the purpose of Office Complex of Project

Pushpak (BRTF) vide Award No. 9/1989 and he had already received the

compensation for the acquisition of the said land. The learned counsel submits

that the name of Sh. F. Bialzauva is reflected at Serial No. 48 of the Award No.

9/1989 as the owner of LSC 103/1985. The same fact has been highlighted in

the written statement of the Union of India and also supported by the two

Page No.# 18/37

witnesses namely, Sh. Chalhmingthanga, Joint Director (AD&M) and Narendra

Kumar Nishan, AE (Civil) HQCEP before the learned Trial Court. In the

verification report for Block–III, it was written that “there is only one claimant of

compensation within Block-III namely Pu F. Bialzauva, there is no dispute within

Block-III”.

The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that, the deposition of

the witnesses the State Government as well as the Union of India clearly shows

that the area and boundary of LSC No. 103/1985 in the name of Shri F.

Bialzauva/ Pro-forma defendant No. 5, covers the entire area of land covered by

Permit No. 191/1974. If the Permit No. 191/1974 covered an area of 29.148

bighas there is no such space to cover such a huge area at the land in question,

as such there is no possibility that some part of the Permit No. 191/1974 still

existed.

17. The learned CGC further submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in

deciding that the Order dated 24.11.2015 cancelling Permit No. 191/1974 as

illegal. The learned Trail Court did not fully appreciate the evidence adduced by

the parties wherein the State Govt. in their written statement has clearly stated

that the reason why the Order dated 24.11.2015, cancelling Permit No.

191/1974 was issued by the Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Land Revenue &

Page No.# 19/37

Settlement Department was done in compliance with the order of this court

01.05.2015 in connection with contempt Case (C) No. 16/2015. The authorities

of Land Revenue & Settlement Department had enquired into the matter and

had verified the relevant and original records with regard to the allotment and

settlement of land which was purchased by the petitioner Smt. Saithangpuii

Sailo. The State Govt. in reply to the enquiry stated that the Govt. vide its letter

10.05.2002 stated that the Permit No. 191/1974 was already converted into

Periodic Patta No. 1/77 (Areas = 2.00 bighas) by Pu Liantudaia which

superseded the Permit No. 191/1974. The said Periodic Patta No. 1/77 was sold

to Mr. F. Bialzauva and mutation was accordingly done on 10.06.1977 which was

again converted into LSC No. 103/1985 in favour of Mr. F. Bialzuava. He

submitted that, all the transaction was done before the dead of Mr. Liantudaia

who died on 20.02.1986.

The learned CGC thus also challenged the validity of the Heirship Certificate

issued since Pu Liantudaia was not the owner of the land in the year 2000.

18. The learned CGC further submitted that the Trial Court had wrongly

decided that the defendant Nos. 6 & 7 occupied Permit No. 191/1974 without

acquiring the land. She stated that the respondent No. 1/Plaintiff never stated in

her plaint that the land of the plaintiff had been occupied by the BRTF but had

Page No.# 20/37

stated in her plaint that the defendant No. 1 had hired the plaintiff to take back

position of his land for which purpose power of attorney dated 19.03.2002 was

executed by defendant No. 1. The learned CGC submitted that the

plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had just stated that the action of the defendant Nos.

6 & 7 (Union of India) in occupying the land of the plaintiff without acquiring

the land and without paying rented compensation is illegal. However, the

plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence to prove the same. She also

submitted that, the State Govt. had clearly stated that there is no existent of

Permit No. 191/1974 in the Order dated 24.11.2015 while the written statement

and cross examination of the two defendant witnesses proved that the Order

dated 24.11.2015 was issued legally. She submitted that 38.2 acres of land at

Zemabawk for Project Pushpak had been already allotted in the name of the

Principal Secretary to the Govt. of India, Revenue, Excise & Taxation

Department vide Order dated 04.12.1982. Out of 38.2 acres of land 29.6 acres

belong to the Government and 8.6 acres is Private land. She also submitted

that, the evidence adduced and the written statement of the Union of India

corroborated with each other to prove that BRTF occupied the land in question

and the plaintiff and the witnesses never rebutted the same statement.

The learned CGC thus submitted that the Civil Suit No. 59/2016 should have

been dismissed by upholding the Government letter dated 24.11.2015.

Page No.# 21/37

19. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1/Smt.

Saithangpuii submitted that the instant case is pertaining to the land covered by

Permit No. 191/1971. On the demise of Sh. Liantudaia, Heirship Certificate was

issued to the respondent No. 2 in respect of all the properties left by the late

Sh. Liantudaia. Thereafter, on 12.04.2002 the respondent No. 1 and respondent

No. 2 signed an agreement “Inremna thuthlung” in respect of the land covered

by Permit No. 191/1974 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to respondent No. 1/Smt.

Saithangpuii. The agreement also stated that respondent No. 2 would be

responsible for any dispute that may arise with BRTF concerning the sale of the

mentioned land and if the respondent No. 2 was unable to retrieve the land, he

would pay 10% interest on the Rs. 20,000/- received from compensation.

Thereafter, vide an application dated 06.06.2002, the respondent No. 2 made an

application to the Chief Secretary for proper measurement of the area of Permit

No. 191/1974 and for issuance of a fresh past as per the boundary description.

The area of the land of Permit No. 191/1974 was recorded as 2 bighas,

however, on re-measurement it was found to be 29.4 bighas, but on the basis of

an office memorandum dated 26.08.1991 it was wrongly decided that only the

area allotted as shown in the original paper would be allowed for conversion

into a permanent settlement even if the area of the Permit No. 191/1974 was

only 2 bighas.

Page No.# 22/37

20. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the available records show that

Sh. Liantudaia had sold his land covered by Permit No. 191/1974, having an

area of 2 bighas to Sh. F. Bialzauva on 10.06.1977, the remaining portion was

not reflected in Block-III. While Shri. Liantudaia (late) had sold only a portion

(16765 sq.ft.) of his land covered by Permit No. 191/1974 to Sh. F. Bialzauva in

the year 1979 and the remaining portion was never sold to Sh. F. Bialzauva. Sh.

F. Bialzauva was later issued Periodic Patta No. 1/1977, which was later

converted into LSC No. AZL 103/1985. Later vide Award No. 9/1989, the LSC

No. AZL 103/1985 bought by Sh. Bialzauva having an area of 16765 sq.mtrs.

was acquired for the purpose of office complex of BRTF @Rs. 30/- per sq.ft.

However, the remaining area of land covered by Permit No. 191/1974 was

retained by Shri. Liantudaia and the same had also been converted into Periodic

Patta No. 57/1995 which was reverted back to its original status as Permit No.

191/1974 vide Order dated 03.10.1997 issued by the ASO-1, LR&S as the land

was within the Aizawl town area.

21. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Government of

Mizoram without knowing the full facts of the case had convened its approval for

conversion of Permit No. 191/1974 into house site with 2 bighas and accordingly

the Revenue Department had closed the matter by not considering the claim of

Sh. H. Thanzauva. However, later Permit No. 191/1974 was corrected with the

Page No.# 23/37

area from 29.48 bighas to 2 bighas and consequently, Permit No. 191/1974 was

re-issued on 17.11.2003. The learned Trial Court vide its Judgment & Order

dated 05.04.2019 had therefore correctly decided that the Order dated

24.11.2015 was illegal.

22. The learned senior counsel submitted that this court vide order dated

16.09.2021 in RFA No. 16 of 2020had allowed the suit to be taken up afresh.

The plaintiff (present respondent No. 1) had filed a recast plaint, wherein the

appellants arrayed as respondent Nos. 6 & 7 were allowed to be impleaded and

the learned Trial Court had allowed the amendment of the plaint filed by the

instant respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10(4) CPC on the Civil Suit No.

59/2016 being remanded back to the learned Trial Court. The respondent No. 1

(plaintiff) had inserted the relief which she had claimed against the newly

impleaded defendant Nos. 6 & 7 (present appellants). He also submitted that

since the claim of the plaintiff/present respondent No. 1 against the present

respondent No. 2 and the State defendants had not changed, the parties had

chosen to adopt the cross examination conducted earlier which is with the

permission of the Trial Court. There was no question of not following the

provisions of CPC by the Trial Court.

23. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Heirship Certificate

Page No.# 24/37

dated 14.03.2000 was issued to the present respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 1)

in respect of all the properties left behind by the deceased Sh. Liantudaia. The

deceased Sh. Liantudaia was the owner of Permit No. 191/1974, except the area

sold to Sh. F. Bialzauva. Therefore, the land under Permit No. 191/1974 was

rightly included in the Heirship Certificate dated 14.03.2000 being the landed

property of the deceased Sh. Liantudaia.

24. The learned senior counsel submitted that the Permit No. 191/1974 was

re-issued on 17.11.2003 with the approval of the Government vide letter dated

05.11.2003, whereby, the area of the land covered by the said permit was

increase from 2 bighas to 29.48 bighas as per the joint spot verification done

according to the boundary description on 24.03.2003. However, the said permit

was wrongly cancelled vide the impugned letter dated 24.11.2015 by the

Secretary, LR&S without issuing any notice to the land owners, and was thus

challenged in the Civil Suit No. 59/2016.

25. The learned senior counsel further submitted that on a perusal of the

verification report clearly shows that defendant Nos. 6 & 7 (appellants) have

illegally occupied the area covered by Permit No. 191/1974 thinking that it was

Government free land. The appellants (defendant Nos. 6 & 7) have now refused

to acquire the said land or pay rental compensation in spite of several

Page No.# 25/37

communications given to them by the State respondent to pay the rental

compensation. However, the State Government had issued the impugned letter

dated 24.11.2015 cancelling Permit No. 191/1974 contrary to their previous

order, without given a chance to the land owner of being heard and the learned

Trial Court had rightly set aside the Order dated 24.11.2015 after hearing both

the parties.

26. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the BRTF have admitted

the fact that they do not have any land pass for Block-III of the office complex

of Pushpak (BRTF) issued by Land Revenue Department. The spot verification

conducted by Sh. K. Laltanpuia, Surveyor on the direction of the learned Trial

Court clearly reveals that the location of Permit No. 191/1974 is the occupied

area of defendant Nos. 6 & 7 (appellants) as Block-III. That since the mistake

was committed by the authorities concerned while proceeding with the

acquisition in connection with Award No. 9/1989 by showing the area covered

by Permit No. 191/1974 as a Government free land. This mistake was corrected

by the learned Trial Court vide the Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2023. The

appellants have no grounds to appeal against the said judgment and order.

27. The learned senior counsel submitted that the right to private property is a

human right and relied on the following authorities:- Vidya Devi Vs. State of

Page No.# 26/37

Himachal Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2020) 2 SCC 569 (para 12) and

State of Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Anr., reported in (2011) 10 SCC

404 (para 33 & 34), wherein the Apex Court held that to forcibly dispose of a

person’s private property without following the due process of law would be a

violation of a Human Right.

He further relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Subhaga & Ors.

Vs. Shobaha & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 466 (para 6), wherein it was

held that a property can be identified either by boundaries or by any other

specific description.

The learned counsel has also cited the Judgments of the Apex Court in J.

Pachhunga Vs. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram & Ors., reported

in (2017) 4 GLT 1044 (para 13), Smt. Malsawmi Pautu & Ors. Vs. The

State of Mizoram & Ors., WP(C) No. 109/2009 dated 05.05.2011 and Smt.

V.L. Buki Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., WP(C) No. 7/2007 dated 01.04.2009,

wherein the court had ordered that the measurement of the land shall be done

according to the boundaries that is described.

28. Mr. L. H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2

submitted that since respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are sailing in the same boat,

fighting for justice for the past few years, having a common enemy, all the

Page No.# 27/37

submissions made by the learned senior counsel are adopted by him. He also

submitted that taking into account the documentary evidence as well as the oral

evidences adduced by the rival witnesses, the appellants do not have any pass

in respect of the land occupied by them illegally, for the past many years, and

without any valid pass issued to them, they do not have any basis in order to

file the present appeal and thus, the instant appeal is without any merits and

should be dismissed with exemplary cost.

29. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that she does not have

anything to submit in the matter, since the State respondents have preferred not

to file an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2023.

30. In rebuttal, Ms. Zairemsangpuii submitted that at the time of acquisition

the appellants were given land certificate, which was exhibited as Ext D-5,

having 161.5 50 bighas. This is certificate of land for the whole acquisition of

land. The main reason is that in the last sentence of the certificate, the terms

and conditions of the actual allotment will be governed by lease deed between

the State of Mizoram, Revenue Department and BRTF. Even though that

acquisition has been done in the year 1989, till date, the State Government

unable to prepare a lease deed in some Blocks of acquisition proceeding, due to

the lethargy and due to unfair means of the State respondents. Because the

Page No.# 28/37

appellants already acquired the land, they were given land certificate, however

the land lease is still awaited from the State Government, even after many

reminders have been sent to them.

31. This court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels

for both the parties and have also perused the documents on

record.

32. This court finds that the learned trial court, while considering the issue,

whether the suit was barred by limitation, had considered the evidence adduced

by the parties and had rightly observed that the cause of action arose on

24.11.2015 and therefore not barred by limitation.

33. This court also finds that this court vide its’ order dated 16.09.2021 in RFA

No. 16/2020, had allowed the suit to be taken up afresh, by allowing the

appellants to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Accordingly, the plaintiff

had also amended its plaint by inserting the relief claimed against the newly

impleaded respondent Nos. 6 & 7. This court finds that it is not necessary for

the learned Trial Court to specifically mention whether it relied upon the

evidence adduced earlier by the plaintiff or the additional affidavit adduced,

since the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence adduced

by the parties as a whole, in deciding the issues framed in Civil Suit.

Page No.# 29/37

Accordingly, this court finds no grounds to interfere with the procedure followed

by the learned Trial Court, while considering the matter again, upon it being

remanded back for impleadment of respondent Nos. 6 & 7 (the present

appellants in Civil Suit No. 59/2016).

34. This court also finds that since the private respondent nos.1 and 2 have

already come to an amicable settlement between themselves, there is no

requirement to deal with the issues regarding the genuineness of the sale

deeds/power of attorney executed between the private respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

35. From the evidence adduced by the parties, the main points for

determination in this appeal are;

(i) whether the learned trial court had erred in deciding that the Order dated

24.11.2015 was illegal, null and void and erred in coming to the finding that

Permit No. 191/74 has a total area of 29.48 bighas and not an area of 2 bighas

which was purchased by Sh. Bialzauva (Proforma Defendant No. 5 in the Civil

Suit) and later converted to LSC No. 103/85, and subsequently acquired by the

appellants vide Award No .9/1989.

(ii) whether the learned trial court had erred in directing the appellants to pay

rental compensation for the period from 01.06.1963 - 31.12.2008 as already

assessed by the State Govt. and to pay further compensation till the land is

Page No.# 30/37

vacated or acquired by the appellants.

36. From the submissions of both the parties, the undisputed facts are that

Permit Nos. 190/1994 and 191/1974 were bifurcated from Permit No. 682/1963

belonging to Sh. Liantudaia (Late). The case pertains to the landed area of the

Permit No. 191/1974. That Sh. F. Bialzauva had bought landed property having

an area of 2 bighas, which was converted into Periodic Patta No. 1/1977 and

which was again converted into LSC No. 103/1985 in the name of Sh. F.

Bialzauva. Thereafter, the LSC No. 103/1985 was acquired for the purpose of

Office Complex of Project Pushpak (BRTF) vide Award No. 9/1989 and Sh. F.

Bialzauva had received the compensation amount on his named being reflected

at Serial No. 48 of the Award No. 9/1989.

37. It is seen that the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in civil suit) and respondent

No. 2 (defendant No. 2 in the civil suit) have both deposed that when Sh. F.

Bialzauva purchased an area of 2 bighas from the Periodic Patta No. 191/1974,

it was only a portion of the land covered by Permit No. 191/1974. This version

was supported by the Revenue Department, when on 24.02.2003, a spot

verification of Permit No. 191/1974 was conducted by the joint team consisting

of Sh. Sandeep Gupta, AEE (C) 107 RCC, Sh. Lalhmachhuana ASO 2 and Sh.

Lalringliana Tongi, Surveyor-I, wherein, as per the boundary description, Permit

Page No.# 31/37

No. 191/1974 was found to have an area is 29.48 bighas which was approved

by the Government on 14.10.2003. Accordingly, on 17.11.2003, a fresh Permit

No. 191/1974 dated 17.11.2003 was issued showing an area as 29.48 bighas.

The evidence of Sh. K. Laltanpuia, Surveyor, Directorate of Land Revenue &

Settlement who appeared as court witness on 22.07.2022, in his cross

examination had also admitted that since Permit No. 190/1974 and 191/1974

came into existence from Permit No. 682/1963, they are lying adjacent to each

other, however at the time of spot verification, the BRTF personnel had

produced a map which show that the area of Permit No. 190/1974 and Permit

No. 191/1974 were not lying adjacent, instead, the land adjacent to Permit No.

191/1974 was shown as Government free land. He also admitted that after it

was demarcated as per the boundary description, the area covered by Permit

No. 191/1974 was 29.48 bighas. He further admitted that after the court had

directed him to demarcate the said permit after the exclusion of the land of Sh.

F. Bialzauva and the land of Sh. D. Lalrintluanga (proforma defendant Nos. 4 &

5), the remaining area of land covered by Permit No. 191/1974 was 20.2 bighas.

He also admitted that the BRTF personnel, who were present during the spot

verification, had followed him throughout the demarcation and they did not

raise any objection during the said period.

38. This court has also perused the evidence of the two witnesses produced

Page No.# 32/37

by defendant Nos. 6 & 7 (present appellants), which are similar to each other.

Sh. Chalhmingthanga, Joint Director (Adm.), Nodal Officer Legal, HQCE (P),

Pushpak in his examination-in-chief had supported the case of the appellants.

However, on perusal of his cross examination, it is seen that he had admitted

that though Permit No. 190/1974 and Permit No. 191/1974 were converted into

Periodic Patta No. 4/1977 & Periodic Patta No. 1/1977 respectively by the

Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl. However, since both the periodic pattas were

within Aizawl town area, they were reverted back to Permit No. 190/1974 and

191/1974 in 1997. He admitted that Permit No. 191/1974 was not included in

the Award No. 9/1989. He admitted that Permit No. 191/1974 was enhanced

from 2 bighas to 29.48 bighas, on the basis of the joint verification report dated

24.03.2003 and further explained that he did not know the reason why the

Revenue Department enhanced the area of Permit No. 191/1974 from 2 bighas

to 29.48 bighas. He admitted that the land acquired for the Office Complex for

Project Pushpak (BRTF) from Sh. F. Bialzauva vide LSC No. 103/85 was having

an area of 16765 sq.ft. as shown in Award No. 9/1989. He also admitted that he

did not know the boundary description of LSC No. 103/1985 and that he did not

know whether the boundary description of Permit No. 191/1975 and LSC No.

103/1985 are similar or not. He also admitted that the Revenue Department

(defendant No. 2 in the civil suit) had forwarded a letter dated 17.02.2004 to

Page No.# 33/37

the defendant Nos. 6 & 7 (present plaintiff) claim for rental charges for

occupation of private lands at Zemabawk, Aizawl and that he did not know

whether the said letter dated 17.02.2004 was challenged by the present

appellants. He also admitted that the BRTF does not have any land pass for

Block-III of the Office Complex of Project Pushpak (BRTF) issued by the

Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram

39. This court has also perused the evidence adduced on behalf of the State

respondents. It is seen that two witnesses were produced on behalf of the

Revenue Department (defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in the Civil Suit No. 59/2016). The

examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of these two witnesses are

similar. It is seen that Smt. Martin Lalhlupuii, the Under Secretary, Revenue

Department, had deposed in her examination-in-chief that in compliance with

the Order of this court dated 01.05.2015, passed in WP(C) No. 48/2015, the

state had issued the Order dated 24.11.2015 wherein, the department did not

propose to allot land to individuals within the area covered by Permit No.

191/1974, since there was no longer any valid permit No. 191/1974, and the

vacant land referred to in the Order dated 24.11.2015 was the land which was

already allotted to the BRTF. It is however seen that during her cross-

examination, she had admitted that since the area covered by permit No.

Page No.# 34/37

191/1974 falls within the Aizawl Town area, the conversion of the said permit

into a periodic patta was referred back to Permit No. 191/1974. She further

admitted that when Shri. Thanzauva (defendant No. 2) had applied for an

Heirship Certificate, the permit No. 191/1974 in respect of permit No. 191/1974

was valid. She also admitted that the Order dated 24.11.2015 relied on the

letter dated 10.05.2002, which was made by the defendant No. 3/Revenue

Department on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 26.08.1991, wherein

the government had decided that henceforth, only the areas allotted as shown

in the original paper be allowed for conversion into permanent settlement, even

if the boundary description covers the area and that the claim of land for which

Revenue Taxes are paid only can be considered by the Government. Thus, the

claim of land for compensation in favor of Pu. Bialzauva was considered for

which taxes are paid by the land owner and that as per the Land Revenue Acts

and Rules, the claim of Pu H. Thanzauva S/o Liantudaia(L) was treated as

closed chapter. The witness also admitted that there was however, a joint

verification done, as per the boundary description of the Permit No. 191/1974

40. Considering the deposition made by the witnesses for the appellants and

the State respondents, it is clear that the landed area of Permit No. 191/1974

was increased from 2 bighas to 29.48 bighas after a spot verification was

Page No.# 35/37

conducted as per its boundary description on 24.02.2003. Thereafter, Permit No.

191/1974 was re-issued with an area of 29.48 bighas on 17.11.2003. It is also

seen that though the State Government had accepted the area of Permit No.

191/1974 as 29.48 bighas, however, the impugned order dated 24.11.2015 had

overrule its own findings by relying on its previous report submitted on

11.09.1989 vide Letter dated 10.05.2002. It is thus seen that the impugned

order dated 24.11.2015 was based on old documents/letters and there is no

mention of any spot verification.

41. This court also finds that the learned Trial Court has considered the

evidence adduced by the parties and by relying on the judgment of the Apex

Court in Subhaga & Ors. Vs. Shobaha & Ors. (Supra) had observed that a

property can be identified either by boundary or by any other specific

description, even if there are any discrepancies normally, the boundaries should

prevail. This court also finds that the learned Trial Court had also relied upon the

judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pachhunga Vs. Chief

Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram & Ors., (supra), WP(C) No. 109/2009

dated 05.05.2011 and WP(C) No. 7/2007 dated 01.04.2009, wherein it was held

that in the case of discrepancies between the area of past the boundary

description of the past should prevail.

Page No.# 36/37

42. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the

learned Trial Court had correctly decided that “the area of land covered by LSC

No. 103/1985 which was in the name of Sh. Bialzauva covered an area of 1.95

bighas whereas the Permit No. 191/1974 covered an area of 29.48 bighas as

per the boundary description. Therefore, it is clear that the LSC No. 103/1985

did not cover the entire area covered by Permit No. 191/1974. Thus, the

Periodic Patta No. 1/1997 and Periodic Patta No. 57/1995 were issued from

Permit No. 191/1974, wherein Periodic Patta No. 1/1977 was in favour of Sh. F.

Bialzauva and Periodic Patta No. 57/1995 was in favour of Sh. Liantudaia. The

Periodic Patta No. 57/1994 was reverted back to its original Permit No.

191/1974 as the land falls within Aizawl town area. Therefore, it is clear that Sh.

F. Bialzauva purchase only a small portion of the area covered by Permit No.

191/1974 and the remaining area was retained by Sh. Liantudaia which was

then inherited by the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 1). The suit land

presently occupied by the appellants (defendant Nos. 6 & 7) covers an area of

20.2 bighas as per the spot verification conducted. The acquired LSC of Sh. F.

Bialzauva therefore cannot cover the entire area which had clearly indicated

that the remaining area of land occupied by the appellants (defendant Nos. 6 &

7) is covered by Permit No. 191/1974 inherited by respondent No. 2 (defendant

No. 1)”

Page No.# 37/37

43. This court also finds that from the evidence adduced, the appellants were

also asked by the State respondents for a payment of rent by calculating the

rental compensation for a period from 01.06.1963 to 31.12.3003 and from

01.01.2004 to 31.12.2008 vide letter dated 25.11.2009 and 01.09.2019. It is

also seen that the appellants themselves have admitted that they do not have a

land lease over the landed property/area occupied by them and that the

condition imposed in the given land certificate, was that the actual allotment

will be governed by lease deed between the State of Mizoram, which has not

been done till date.

44. For the above reasons, this court finds no grounds to interfere with the

Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge-I in Civil

Suit No. 59/2016.

45. Accordingly, the instant RFA No. 53/2023 stands dismissed and disposed

of.

No costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant