JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal by the Defendant Nos. 4 to 11 in Suit No. 1/1996, filed in the Court of the learned Additional District Magistrate(Judicial), Aizawl District, Aizawl, by present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is directed against the judgment & decree dated 25th March 2009 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, in RFA No. 1/ 2008, dismissing the appeal by affirming the judgment & decree dated 18h December 2007 passed in the said suit by the learned Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl, whereby and where-under the suit of the Plaintiffs/ Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had been decreed. 2 The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as Plaintiffs had instituted the said suit in Court of learned Additional District Magistrate(Judicial), Aizawl District, Aizawl, in the year 1996, which was subsequently transferred to the file of learned Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl, on separation of the judiciary from executive. In the said suit, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 prayed for a decree declaring that they are entitled to get the land, covered by Periodic Patta No. 384/72 and Permit No. 154/62, converted to the land settlement certificate (LSC); for directing the Defendant Nos. 1,2 & 3(Respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5) to issue LSC in respect of the said land and also for permanent injunction, apart from a decree for eviction of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 11( Appellants-herein) and declaring that order dated 12th February 1982, refusing conversion of the said land to LSC, and the orders dated 31st July 1996 and 7th August 1996, conveying approval for allotment of the land in favour of the present Appellants and directing the Assistant Settlement Officer-I to allot the land in favour of the Appellants, respectively, are void and illegal. The suit had been contested by all the Defendants by filing their written statements in two sets with the almost identical contention, one by the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3, and the other by Defendant Nos. 4 to 11. According to Defendants, the land covered by said periodic patta and Permit had been acquired by the Government for expansion of capital complex, for which adequate compensation for the crops grown over there had been paid. 1, 2 & 3, and the other by Defendant Nos. 4 to 11. According to Defendants, the land covered by said periodic patta and Permit had been acquired by the Government for expansion of capital complex, for which adequate compensation for the crops grown over there had been paid. It is also the contention of the Defendants, in the written statements, that since the Plaintiffs had no ownership right over the land in question, no LSC having been issued in their favour, they were entitled to compensation for the crops, which had been paid in the year 1983-84 for acquisition of the said land. A counter-claim had also been filed by the present Appellants praying for compensation. While the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 adduced evidence in support of their claim, Defendants did not, though they filed their written statement. 3. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for consideration: 1) Whether there is cause of action for the suit. 2) Whether the Plaintiffs have locus standi to file the suit. 3) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed. If so, to what extent? 4. The learned trial Court, thereafter, by judgment & decree dated 30th January 2003 had decreed the suit of Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Being aggrieved, the present Appellants preferred RFA No. 2/2003 in the Court of the learned Addl. District Magistrate(Judicial), which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 21 November 2003. The Plaintiffs/ Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 then had preferred RSA No. 17/2003 before this Court, which was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 16 February 2005 by setting aside the judgment & decree passed by both the learned Courts below and remanding the suit for fresh trial by formulating the following two issues: 1) Whether the Appellants received the said amount of money amounting to Rs. 71,150/-and Rs. 76,950/-respectively, as compensation for the crops damaged by the government agency at the time of rehabilitation of Respondent Nos. 4-11 or the said amounts of money were paid as compensation by the government for acquisition of the suit lands for capital expansion project in the year 1984 to the Appellants? 71,150/-and Rs. 76,950/-respectively, as compensation for the crops damaged by the government agency at the time of rehabilitation of Respondent Nos. 4-11 or the said amounts of money were paid as compensation by the government for acquisition of the suit lands for capital expansion project in the year 1984 to the Appellants? 2) Whether or not the periodic patta No. 304/72 and permit No. 164/62 shall continue to exist after the application of the Appellants under Rule 13 of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 were rejected under the letter of Respondent No. 1, being No. DLR/DL-58/80-81/66 dated 12.2.82? 5. On remand, the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3/Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Defendant Nos. 4 to 11/ Appellants had examined one witness each. The learned trial Court, by the judgment dated 18th December 2007 decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs, against which though RFA No. 1/2008 was filed by the present Appellants the same was dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence the present appeal. 6. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 22nd June 2009 by formulating the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether the findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court on issue No. 4 that the suit land was not acquired was vitiated and perverse in law as it was not based on the evidence on record. ii) Whether the findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court on issue No. 5 that the Periodic Patta No. 304/72 and Permit No. 154/62 were not cancelled was vitiated in law as it was based on wrong appreciation of law involved and non-appreciation of the evidence on record. 7. I have heard Mr A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for Appellants and Mr M. Zothankhuma, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Ms Dinari T. Azyu, learned State counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 8. 7. I have heard Mr A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for Appellants and Mr M. Zothankhuma, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Ms Dinari T. Azyu, learned State counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 8. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Appellants that this Court vide judgment & order dated 16th February 2005 passed in RSA No. 17/2003 though directed the learned trial Court to decide the issues framed and though against the decision of the learned trial Court an appeal was taken by the present Appellants before the first appellate Court, the said Court had decided the said appeal against the present Appellants without recording any specific finding relating to the issues framed by this Court vide the aforesaid judgment and hence the appellate judgment and decree, which is challenged in the present appeal, may be set aside and the case be remanded to learned first appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh on basis of the evidences already on record. 9. Learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, on the other hand supporting the judgment & decree passed by both learned Courts below, has submitted that since the issues, as framed by this Court, have already been answered by both the learned Courts below, those do not require any interference in this second appeal. It has also been submitted that in fact it appears from impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court that the Defendant Nos. 4 & 6, who were the Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 in RFA No. 1/2008, had withdrawn their appeal, and therefore Appellants have no right to file this second appeal. Placing reliance on the application filed before this Court, which is registered and numbered as CM No. 29/2011, it has also been submitted that the Appellant Nos. 1,2 & 3 declared by affidavits that they had never authorised any one to prefer the present appeal, and therefore the appeal be dismissed as against them. The learned State counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has supported the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. 10. 1,2 & 3 declared by affidavits that they had never authorised any one to prefer the present appeal, and therefore the appeal be dismissed as against them. The learned State counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has supported the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. 10. It appears from judgment and order dated 16th February 2005 passed in RSA No. 17/2003 that the judgments & decrees of both the learned Courts below were set aside and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh on the issues framed by said order. It also appears from judgment & decree passed by the learned trial Court, on remand, that those issues were decided in favour of Plaintiffs/ Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein. The appeal, being RFA No. 1/2008 was also decided in favour of the Plaintiffs/ Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-herein. 11. Perusal of judgment & decree dated 25th March 2009 passed in RFA No. 1/2008 reveals that though the learned first appellate Court in the said judgment observed that Government gave money to the Plaintiffs to the tune of Rs. 71,150/-and Rs. 76,950/-, no finding ~ as to why said amount was paid to the Plaintiffs by the Government ~ has been recorded, although one of the issues framed by this Court relates to the reason ~ as to why the said amount was paid as compensation by the Government. That apart, no finding relating to the effect of passing of the order dated 12th February 1982, i.e. rejection of the prayer for conversion of periodic patta and Permit to LSC, on the periodic patta and the Permit has been recorded by the learned first appellate Court, which was the subject-matter of issue No. 2 framed by this Court. The learned first appellate Court being the final-Court-on-facts is duty-bound to record reasons and also to discuss the entire evidences on record, as was adduced by the parties. 12. In view of the above, the judgment & decree dated 25th March 2009 passed by the learned first appellate Court in RFA No. 1/2008 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned first appellate Court for deciding the said appeal afresh on the basis of the evidences already on record. 12. In view of the above, the judgment & decree dated 25th March 2009 passed by the learned first appellate Court in RFA No. 1/2008 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned first appellate Court for deciding the said appeal afresh on the basis of the evidences already on record. The learned first appellate Court shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within forty-five days from the date of appearance of parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned first appellate Court, that is the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl, on11th April, 2011 for taking necessary order from the said Court. 13. While deciding the appeal, the learned first appellate Court shall also go into the question as to whether any of the Appellants had withdrawn RFA No. 1/2008, since an observation has been made in impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court that an application for withdrawal of the appeal had been filed by some of the Appellants, without, however, indicating whether the said appeal was dismissed in so far as those Appellants were concerned. The contention of the learned Counsel for Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that apart from Appellant Nos. 1 & 3 the Appellant No. 2 had also sworn an affidavit for withdrawal of the appeal shall also be considered by the learned first appellate Court. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 15. Registry to send the LCR to the learned first appellate Court, so as to reach the said Court on or before the 1st April 2011.