I have heard Mr. RC Thanga, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. AR Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal under clause 3 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts), Order, 1954 is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.1987 passed by the learned District Council Court at Aizawl in CA No. 22 of 1985 affirming the judgment and the order dated 11.6.1985 passed by the learned Subordinate District Council Court at Aizawl in Case No.46 of 1984. 3. The High Court may treat such an appeal as a first appeal and can enter into the facts of the case as held by this Court in Pachunga vs. Mrs Zokhumi reported in (1989) 2 GLR (NOC) 28 (1989 (2) GLJ (NOC) 8. 4. Briefly, the facts of this case, according to the respondent-plaintiffs, are that in 1964 they started wet rice cultivation (WRC) inside the reserved forest at Vakultai Phari under valid permits granted by the District Council. But they had to stop WRC there in 1966 because of MNF insurgency. When the situation began to improve in 1969, they came back to resume WRC but found that in the meantime their land had been encroached by the appellant-defendants who subsequently managed to obtain an order dated 7.2.1990 allowing them to cultivate the said land for a year only. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Govt of Mizoram, after spot verification cancelled their temporary permits and declared the respondent-plaintiffs to be the lawful owners of the said land by an order dated 13.6.1973. In disregard to this order, the appellant defendants continued WRC over the said land engaging Muslim cultivators from Cachar. The Director, Settlement and Land Records, then by an order dated 13.2.1975 directed them to vacate the said land but to no avail. The Director issued another order dated 11.2.1976 confirming cancellation of the temporary permits of the appellant-defendants and by the same order directed the respondent-plaintiffs compensation for the expenditure incurred by them for improvement of the land. 5. The respondent-plaintiffs also instituted Misc Case No.46 of 1984 in the Subordinate District Council Court claiming compensation from the appellant-defendants for illegally enjoying the fruits from their virgin soil. 5. The respondent-plaintiffs also instituted Misc Case No.46 of 1984 in the Subordinate District Council Court claiming compensation from the appellant-defendants for illegally enjoying the fruits from their virgin soil. The appellant-defendants contested the claim by stating that the respondent-plaintiffs neglected the WRC allotted to them and the Revenue authorities therefore issued valid passes to them (appellant defendants) and they cultivated the said land for decades. 6. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing them, the learned Subordinate District Council Court though did not allow the claim for compensation, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs directing the appellant-defendants to vacate the land forthwith by the judgment and order dated 11.6.1985. The learned District Council Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant on merit after hearing the parties and affirmed the judgment and order dated 24.3.1987 of the learned Subordinate District Council Court by judgment and order dated 24.3.87 impugned in the present appeal before this Court under clause 3 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over DistrictCouncil Courts),1954. 7. As grounds of this appeal, it is stated that the facts narrated by the Subordinate District Council Court are different from the facts set out by the District Council Court, that the respondent-plaintiff Nos 1 to 5 and 7 are residents of Aizawl about 125 KMs from the land in question and the appellant-defendants have been cultivating the said land for last 20 years; that there is no evidence for h the Subordinate District Council Court to hold that the appellant-defendants obtained passes in 1981/82 by undue influence; that land of the respondents-plaintiffs are different from the land of the appellant-defendants and that the passes of the appellant-defendants were cancelled by the incompetent authority in violation of the principles of natural justice. As regards the first ground, the facts stated to have been set out by the District Council Court are actually what was asserted by the appellant-defendants before the District Council Court vide para 2 of its judgment. Regarding the second ground, if the respondent-plaintiffs are non-cultivators being residents of Aizawl town, so are the appellant-defendants who allegedly engaged Muslim cultivators from Cachar to cultivate the said land. Regarding the second ground, if the respondent-plaintiffs are non-cultivators being residents of Aizawl town, so are the appellant-defendants who allegedly engaged Muslim cultivators from Cachar to cultivate the said land. Then the appellant-defendants' possession over the said land for 20 years was in open defiance to the repeated orders of the Revenue authority to vacate the same following cancellation of their temporary passes and such long possession does not confer on them any right over the said land. After cancellation of their temporary passes and declaration of the respondent-plaintiffs' right over the said land by the Revenue authority, how the appellant-defendants could obtain passes in 1981-82 to cultivate the same land by the same Revenue authority is very much intriguing. No question as to the identity of the land was raised by the appellant-defendants in the trial Court. The spot verification by the Assistant Settlement Officer leaves no room for doubt that the land referred to by the respondent-plaintiffs and the land referred to by the appellant-defendants are one and the same land. The cancellation of the appellant-defendants' passes was confirmed by the Director, Settlement and Land Records, as far back as 11.2.76. There is, however, nothing on record to show that such cancellation orders were ever set aside by any appro­priate authority/Court on being moved by the appellant-defendants. Lastly, Mr. Thanga., learned counsel for the appellant defendants, prays that the case be remanded for retrial as the trial before the Subordinate District Council Court suffered from serious procedural irregularities. Mr. Thanga, however, has not elaborated what exactly were the irregularities. Opposing remand of the case, Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs, submits that the present appeal has been pending before this Court for more than a decade since 1987 and that the learned Subordinate District Council Court duly conducted the trial, examined as may as eleven witnesses and after due consideration of the evidence on record and hearing the parties arrived at the right conclusion in accordance with the Administration of Justice Rules, 1953. Rules 46 and 48 thereof read as under : “46. (1) In all civil cases, the District Council Court, the Subordinate District Council Courts and the Additional Subordinate District Council Courts shall adjudicate according to law, justice, equity and good conscience consistent with the circumstances of the case. Rules 46 and 48 thereof read as under : “46. (1) In all civil cases, the District Council Court, the Subordinate District Council Courts and the Additional Subordinate District Council Courts shall adjudicate according to law, justice, equity and good conscience consistent with the circumstances of the case. (2) It shall be discretionary to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation in any form or to warn them that they are liable to punishment for perjury, if they state that which they know to be false. 48. In civil cases, the procedure of the District Council Court or the Subordinate District Council Court, shall be guided by the spirit, but not bound by the letter, of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 in all matters not covered by recognized customary laws or usages of the district”. 8. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by Mr. Thanga, learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, I could not persuade myself to accept the same. I find that the learned Subordinate District Council Court and the learned District Council Court dealt with the evidence on record which I have also scrutinised. I am in general agreement with the views of the Courts it below on the evidence, reasons given and the conclusion arrived at by them. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to repeat the narration of the evidence and reiterate the reasons given. In Girija Nondini vs. Bijendra AIR 1967 SC 1124 (para 12) the Apex Court observed : “It is not the duty of the appellate Court, when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence either to restate the evidence is or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice.” 9. In view of what is stated above, I consider that there is not sufficient ground for interfering with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost.