Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 738 (GAU)

K. Thansiami v. State of Mizoram

2012-06-14

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 09-12-2011 passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the review petition of the petitioner. The facts of the case may be briefly noted. 2. The petitioner as the plaintiff had instituted Civil Suit No. 8 of 2007. It was a suit seeking final conversation and settlement of land measuring 12 bighas covered by Periodic Patta No. 82 of 1980 by issuing Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) in the name of the plaintiff and for payment of rental compensation from 01-09-1986. The reliefs claimed in the suit were as follows: (a) For a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants directing final conversion and settlement of her said land under P. Patta No. 82/80 to LSC in her name for an area of 12 bighas as already decided by the Revenue authorities on the basis of the spot verification and detailed report submitted earlier and at subsequent stages. (b) For payment of rental compensation/charges amounting to Rs. 41,26,140/- to her for the period from September 1986 to December 1997 with interest @ 9 % per annum as assessed by the Defendants for occupation of her land covered by P. Patta No. 82/80 with an area of 12 bighas. (c) For making assessment of rental compensation/charge in favour of the plaintiff in respect of her land which continues to be in the possession/occupation of the Army for the period from 1/1/98 till date or till the Plaintiff's land is de-hired by the Defendants as per law. (d) For cost of the suit. (e) For any other relief(s) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 3. The learned trial Court i.e., the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge-2, Aizawl after considering the evidence adduced and after hearing the matter, passed the judgment and order dated 01-07-2011. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff had valid Periodic Patta No. 82/1980 over the suit land but the validity of that patta was up-to 31-12-2005. It was also held that since the suit land was under the occupation of the army, the plaintiff is entitled to receive rental compensation for such occupation for the period from September, 1986 to December, 1997 totalling Rs. 41,26,140.00 with interest @ 9% per annum till realization. It was also held that since the suit land was under the occupation of the army, the plaintiff is entitled to receive rental compensation for such occupation for the period from September, 1986 to December, 1997 totalling Rs. 41,26,140.00 with interest @ 9% per annum till realization. It was further held that the plaintiff is also entitled to receive rental compensation for such occupation of the suit land for the period from January, 1998 onwards but upto 31-12-2005 i.e. till the validity of her periodic patta at the existing rates with applicable interest. Regarding conversion of the periodic patta to LSC, the matter was left to the discretion of the revenue authorities to take a decision as per provisions of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 (the Act) and the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Rules, 1971(the Rules) as the validity of the periodic patta was upto 31-12-2005. The suit was decreed accordingly. 4. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a review petition before the learned trial Court seeking a review of the judgment aforementioned on the issue relating to conversion of the periodic patta. The same was registered as Review Petition No. 9 of 2011. The relevant portion of the review petition are extracted hereunder:- 3. That at the time of filing the suit in the year 2007 the land of the Plaintiff/Petitioner along with the other adjoining lands continued to be under the occupation of the Army (Defendants No. 5 & 6). However, as decided by the State Govt. officials and Army authorities on 6/8/2008, the land of the Plaintiff/Petitioner along with other lands were de-hired on 09-09-2008 vide Certificate date 9-9-2008. However, the Plaintiff/Petitioner having obtained a copy of the said Certificate only on 30-06-2011 after due diligence from the office of the Village Council, Bawngkawn, Aizawl, she is producing the same to the Hon'ble Court in connection with the present application. 4. That at the time of filing the suit, the Plaintiff/Petitioner had enclosed a Xerox copy of her P. Patta the validity of which was extended only upto 31-12-2005 as she was not in possession of the Copy of her P. Patta which was subsequently extended upto 31-12-2011. 4. That at the time of filing the suit, the Plaintiff/Petitioner had enclosed a Xerox copy of her P. Patta the validity of which was extended only upto 31-12-2005 as she was not in possession of the Copy of her P. Patta which was subsequently extended upto 31-12-2011. In this connection, it may be stated that the plaintiff/Petitioner, even after exercise of due diligence could not locate her said P. Patta which was then in the custody her daughter in law, Smt. Lalrinpuii w/o Richard Remlalnghaka (L), R/o. Durtlang, Aizawl, who had retained it for the purpose of paying Revenue Taxes and for extending its validity from time to time without giving any information to the plaintiff/Petitioner. 5. That in view of the fact that the Plaintiff/Petitioner had produced a copy of her said P. Patta which remained valid only upto 31-12-2005, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has right over the said land covered by her P. Patta No. 82 of 1980 only till 31-12-2005 without any other right beyond that period in respect of the rental compensation payable to her on account of her land being occupied by the Army till 09-09-2008 on which date a certificate for occupied by the Army till 09-09-2008 on which date a certificate for de-hiring of the lands concerned was made. As a result, the Hon'ble Court appears to have omitted making any decree for a direction to the defendants/Opposite Parties No. 1-4 for issuing Land Settlement Certificate to the Plaintiff/Petitioner in respect of her said land covered by P. Patta No. 82/80 with an area of 12 bighas as already permitted and decided by the Govt. Vide. Its Order Memo No. N. 11011/32/89-DTE (REV) dated 8-4-1994 (Exhibit P-5). 5. The learned trial Court, however, by the order dated 09-12-2011 rejected the review petition by reiterating the earlier view that it is the discretion of the revenue authorities to take a decision regarding conversion of the periodic patta to LSC. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff is before the Court with the present petition. 7. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalsawirema, learned State counsel. Also heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned Central Govt. Counsel. 8. Mr. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff is before the Court with the present petition. 7. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalsawirema, learned State counsel. Also heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned Central Govt. Counsel. 8. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and submits that the learned trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the aforesaid provision which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. According to him, the copy of the periodic patta which stood extended till 31-12-2011 was not in the possession of his client and could not be produced before the Court before delivery of the judgment despite exercise of due diligence. Referring to various provisions of the Act and the Rules, learned Senior counsel submits that in the face of the above document, the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for conversion of her patta land. 9. Learned State counsel on the other hand refers to the written objection filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and submits that no case for review was made out by the plaintiff and, therefore, the learned Court below rightly rejected the review petition. He submits that in the garb of review, the petitioner is seeking re-hearing of the case which is not permissible. In this connection, he refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi and other vs. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in (1997)8 SCC 715 . He also contests the claim of the plaintiff on merit to contend that such claim cannot be entertained. 10. Learned Central Govt. counsel submits that the dispute is between the plaintiff and the State authorities and that the Defence Ministry, Government of India has no role in the matter. 11. The submissions made have been considered. 12. The moot question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Court below was justified in rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for review in so far the issue of conversion of her periodic patta to LSC is concerned. 13. The learned trial Court while disposing the civil suit held that the issue regarding conversion of periodic patta into LSC should be left to the discretion of the revenue authorities. 13. The learned trial Court while disposing the civil suit held that the issue regarding conversion of periodic patta into LSC should be left to the discretion of the revenue authorities. It is true that while passing the aforesaid order, the periodic patta of the plaintiff which was before the Court was the one which had validity upto 31-12-2005. However, the learned trial Court did not base his decision entirely on the said periodic patta which was before the Court. When the fresh copy of the periodic patta No. 82/1980 having validity up to 31-12-2011 was placed before the learned Court below, it was still held that the matter regarding conversion of the periodic patta into LSC should be decided by the revenue authorities. 14. The above decision of the learned Court below is a decision on merit and was not influenced by the presence of the periodic patta having validity up to 31-12-2005 or by the subsequent one having validity up to 31-12-2011. Even if the latter document is placed before the Court and considered, in the opinion of the Court, it would not have any material bearing on the final outcome as already reached by the learned Court below. 15. The contention of the learned State counsel that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned Court below while rejecting the review petition and that the petitioner is seeking rehearing of the case has some force. The view taken by the learned Court below while rejecting the review petition is a plausible view and does not require any interference of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction either under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 17. Notwithstanding dismissal of this petition, it would be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the course of action as observed by the learned trial Court and in the event an application is filed for conversion of the periodic patta into LSC, the same should be considered and decided by the revenue authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such application. Such decision shall be taken after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 18. Such decision shall be taken after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 18. Needless to say, if the petitioner continues to have any grievance, it will be open for her to take recourse to such remedial action as may be provided under the law. No cost. Petition dismissed.