JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy 1. Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned Addl. Advocate General representing the appellants (defendants). The respondents (plaintiffs) are represented by Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra. 2. The appellants challenge the decree dated 13.8.2010 in Civil Suit No. 1/2001 rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei, whereby, the suit was decreed and the plaintiffs were declared to be the rightful owners of the suit land covered by their respective LSCs, referred to in paragraph 2 of the plaint. A further declaration on the encroachment by the 2nd Bn. Mizoram Armed Police (MAP) [defendants 7, 6 & 5] from January 1989, till date of the plaintiffs' lands, was also recorded and the defendants were accordingly directed to pay rental compensation to the plaintiffs. Future occupation of the suit land was allowed by the defendants subject to payment of monthly rental or permanent acquisition of land, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An alternate direction was issued to the defendants, to vacate the lands after paying the due rental for the period of occupation. 3. Civil Suit No. 1/2001 was filed by 29 plaintiffs in the Court of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Lunglei, where the plaintiffs relied upon 29 LSCs, to project themselves as owners of the suit lands measuring 4,85,972 sqft., located at Luangmual Ram, Lunglawn, Lunglei. Since the suit lands were encroached by the 2nd Bn of MAP (defendant No. 7), declaration of the plaintiffs title was sought with a further claim for rental charges from the encroachers. 4.1 In the written statement (W.S) submitted by the Revenue Authorities, it was contended that the 29 LSCs were based on fake Garden Temporary Permit No. 5/1984 and fake Garden Patta No. 21/1974 and the LSCs were illegitimately issued by a non competent official, without the knowledge and approval of the competent revenue authority, in contravention of the Rules in force. 4.2 The authorities of the Home Department filed a separate W.S., denying the claim of the plaintiffs by contending, inter alia, that, the LSCs were obtained through fraudulent process; the plaintiffs are not legal owners of the suit lands and there is no question of paying rental charges to those, who used fraudulent means to establish land ownership. It was also contended that the occupied land in question was lawfully allotted to the 2nd Bn. It was also contended that the occupied land in question was lawfully allotted to the 2nd Bn. MAP through the Government order dated 6.9.1099 and therefore the defendant No. 7 being in lawful possession, their eviction can't be directed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed 13 issues and Issue No. 3 being relevant for the present order, is extracted hereinbelow: Issue No. 3 : Whether Garden temporary Permit No. 5/84 in the name of F. Lalthangliana and Garden Patta No. 27/74 were fake and invalid. 6.1 The defendants presented Mr. Ngurchhinga Sailo, an officer of the Revenue and Settlement Department as D.W.1. In his deposition, the D.W.1 categorically stated that the Garden Patta No. 21/L of 1974 was issued in the name of P. Thankanlovi and this was later converted into periodic Patta No. 289/1976. The relevant Pattas were exhibited as Exbt. D-4 and Exbt.D-5 respectively. As regards the Garden Patta No. 21/1974 claimed by the plaintiffs, the D.W.1 testified that 25 LSCs were secured on the basis of a fake Garden Patta No. 21/1971 and these 25 LSCs were demarcated and prepared by the plaintiff No. 1 himself, who at the relevant time, was serving as a Field Assistant in the Revenue Department. In respect of the remaining 4 LSCs of the 4 other plaintiffs, the D.W.1 stated that, these too were processed through another fabricated Garden Patta No. 5/1984. 6.2 The then Director of Land Revenue and Settlement, Mr. H. Liansailova was examined as a Court Witness (C.W.) He had conducted spot verification of the suit lands, but the witness frankly conceded that he did not examine as to whether, the concerned LSCs originating from Land Pass No. 5/1984, were genuine or fake. 7.1 The Garden Permit No. 21/L of 1974 was exhibited in the Trial Court as Exbt D-4, which shows that the said permit was allotted to one Ms. Thankimlovi and the Exbt. further shows that the said garden permit was subsequently converted into Periodic Patta No. 284/1974, by order dated 30.7.1976 of the Assistant Settlement Officer. 7.2 It appears from above that by mischievously using the details of the Garden Permit No. 21/1974, a fake periodic Patta was issued in the name of C. Lalbiakvela and this fake Periodic Patta was exhibited as Exbt.D-5. 7.2 It appears from above that by mischievously using the details of the Garden Permit No. 21/1974, a fake periodic Patta was issued in the name of C. Lalbiakvela and this fake Periodic Patta was exhibited as Exbt.D-5. The defendants case was that 4 LSCs were unauthorizedly processed and allotted in favour of the 4 plaintiffs, out of the Garden Permit No. 21/1974. 8. When the Government learnt of the aforesaid developments, a departmental proceeding was ordered against the plaintiff No. 1 F. Lalthangliana, who at the relevant period served as a Field Assistant uptill 6.6.1983 and was promoted thereafter, to the post of Field Supervisor on 15.5.1996. Learning about the fraudulent origins of the LSCs pertaining to the suit lands, a direction was issued to stop collection of revenue, in respect of the 29 LSCs, mentioned in Exbt.D-4 & Exbt.D-5 respectively. 9. Although the defendants stand was categorical to the effect that the 29 LSCs, which were made the basis of the plaintiffs' claim over the suit land, were obtained through a fraudulent process and Issue No. 3 was specifically framed on this aspect, the learned Trial Court erroneously clubbed the crucial Issue No. 3 with Issue Nos.7, 8 & 9. By referring to the legal rights available to a legitimate LSC holder, the Court answered all the 4 issues (including Issue No. 3), in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Court without any basis further declared that the Garden Temporary Permit No. 5/1984 and Garden Periodic Patta No. 21/1974 were genuine, by overlooking the contrary evidence on record-particularly the testimony of the D.W. and the C.W. 10. Bearing in mind the pleaded case of the parties, the Court should have given an independent finding on the Issue No. 3 by considering the evidence on record. But since the Court failed to do that, the finding recorded in favour of the plaintiffs in my view, can't legally be sustained. Whether the 29 LSCs were procured by the plaintiffs through a fraudulent process or not, is a core issue going into the root of the dispute and the said issue in the context of the defendants pleadings, should have been decided separately, on the basis of the documents and the evidence on record. 11. Whether the 29 LSCs were procured by the plaintiffs through a fraudulent process or not, is a core issue going into the root of the dispute and the said issue in the context of the defendants pleadings, should have been decided separately, on the basis of the documents and the evidence on record. 11. At this stage, a joint submission is made by the Counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents, for remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for a De novo adjudication of the dispute by the trial Court. The parties have additionally prayed for opportunity to adduce further documents and evidence, during the fresh process. 12. Considering the above and accepting the joint submission, the decree rendered in Civil Suit No. 1/2001 is held to be vitiated and the same is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back for a De novo adjudication, in light of the observations, in the preceding paragraphs of this order. However on the legality of the 29 LSCs pertaining to the suit land, the Trial Court will examine the matter independently without being influenced by this Court's observations. The Court will give its independent finding on the basis of the evidence and documents exhibited by the parties. 13. Since this order is dictated in presence of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, the Trial Court needn't issue any fresh notice(s) but the parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei on 23.3.2012, to proceed with the suit in terms of this order. 14. With the aforesaid direction the Appeal stands disposed of, without any order on cost.