Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 687 (GAU)

Milon Rai v. Pabitra Rani Rai

2011-08-11

B.D.AGARWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 17th August, 2009, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl, in LA Case No. 2 of 2007. By this impugned Judgment, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1, for a sum of Rs. 1,02,666/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Six) only, being her share of acquired property. 2. Heard Sri M M Ali, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Sri H Lalmuankima, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1. Also heard Sri N Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Mizoram, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 1 is the niece of the Appellant and she was living in the landed property of the Appellant. The lands of the Appellant were acquired by the Government in the year 2005. Having come to know of the Award in favour of the Appellant alone, the Respondent No. 1 filed a suit in the trial Court. The trial Court directed the Defendant to deposit the share of the Plaintiff in the Court. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). The appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court. Against that order, second appeal being RSA No. 18 of 2006 was filed before this Court. The said appeal was decided on 17.11.2006 with the following directions: Be that as it may, this second appeal having apparently No merit stands closed giving liberty to the Appellant to approach the District Collector for making a reference under Section 30 in terms of the decision recorded in Para-10 of the said award. 4. In terms of the said order, the Respondent No. 1, approached the Deputy Commissioner, who referred the matter to the Civil Court, whereupon the impugned judgment has been passed. 5. In the impugned Judgment, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl, has observed that the house standing on the land of the Appellant was constructed and maintained by the claimant. Sri Ali, learned Counsel for the Appellant did not dispute this fact. 6. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that before referring the dispute to the Civil Court, the Appellant was not heard by the Collector. Sri Ali, learned Counsel for the Appellant did not dispute this fact. 6. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that before referring the dispute to the Civil Court, the Appellant was not heard by the Collector. In my considered opinion, since the dispute was referred to the Civil Court, pursuant to the directions of the High Court, there was No. illegality in referring the dispute to the Civil Court. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.