Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1330 (GAU)

R. Zarzoliana v. State of Mizoram

2015-10-12

B.K.SHARMA, M.R.PATHAK

body2015
JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this appeal, the appellants have impugned the judgment and order dated 19th February, 2013 passed in W.P. (C) No. 27/2012. By the said judgment, the writ petition that was preferred by the appellants has been dismissed both on merit as well as on the ground of delay and laches in approaching the writ Court. 2. Detail facts are not required to be referred to in this order as the same have been elaborately discussed in the impugned judgment. The writ petitioners/appellants were aggrieved by Annexure 34, 38 and 39 orders dated 8th August, 1988, 10th June, 2005 and 16th November, 2005, respectively, by which their Land Settlement Certificates (in short, "LSC") had been cancelled. The writ petition was filed in April, 2012 and thus there was a delay of 24 (twenty-four) years and 7(seven) years, respectively, from 1988 and 2005. There was also no explanation as to the cause of such delay in approaching to writ Court. 3. We have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned State counsel. We have also perused the entire materials on record. 4. The writ petitioners, excepting petitioner Nos. 9 and 10, claimed themselves to be the legal and rightful owners of different plots of lands which were settled with them by the respondents during the years 1986 and 1987 under the Mizo District (Land & Revenue) Act, 1956. The petitioner Nos. 9 and 10 also claimed to be the owners of plots of land settled in their favour by the respondents under the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963. All of them were issued with LSCs. By the impugned order dated 8th August, 1988 (Annexure-34), the LACs were declared invalid on the ground that the same were issued without the approval and sanction of the competent authority and in violation of the earlier notification of the Government dated 14th May, 1985 and order dated Nth June, 1985. Admittedly, the petitioners accepted the said position and raised no grievance against the said order dated 8th August, 1988. 5. After about 16(sixteen) years of the above order, the petitioners were issued with individual show-cause notices dated 10th March, 2004, asking them to show cause as to why the LSCs. referred to above, should not be cancelled. Admittedly, the petitioners accepted the said position and raised no grievance against the said order dated 8th August, 1988. 5. After about 16(sixteen) years of the above order, the petitioners were issued with individual show-cause notices dated 10th March, 2004, asking them to show cause as to why the LSCs. referred to above, should not be cancelled. This show-cause notice was in fact redundant inasmuch as by the above order dated 8th August, 1988, the LSCs were already declared invalid in absence of approval and sanction of the competent authority. For a ready reference, the operative part of the order dated 8th August, 1988 is quoted below :- "In pursuance of the instruction issued by the Govt. of Mizoram in Revenue Department vide letter No. LRR/B-40/88, dated 7.7.1988, the following Land Settlement Certificates in respect of the following persons which were issued without the approval and sanction of the competent authority and on violation of Government notification No. LRR/B-40/84-85/19, dated 14.5.1985 and order No. LRR/B-40/84-85/21 dated 14.6.1985, are hereby declared as Invalid." 6. Responding to the show-cause notices, the petitioners submitted their replies. Thereafter, the respondents in consideration of all the relevant materials passed the impugned orders dated 10th June, 2005 and 16th November, 2005 (Annexures-38 and 39) conveying the approval towards cancellation of the LSCs and can celling the LSCs, respectively. Then also the petitioners did not do anything in the matter and kept on waiting till filing of the writ petition in April, 2012. 7. The learned Single Judge while answering the writ petition formulated the following question for determination:- "23. Moot question for consideration is the legality and correctness of the declaration that the LSCs of the petitioners were invalid and cancellation of the same Related to the above issue is the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioners to compensation under the LA Act for acquisition of land covered by those LSCs. 8. As discussed in the impugned judgment, the lands in question were ear marked for acquisition and, therefore, construction of houses etc. and planting of new crops were restricted vide notification dated 14th May, 1985, which was followed by further order dated 14th June, 1985 imposing restriction/freezing allotment oi land to private individuals. There is no dispute that the LSCs in questions were issued to the petitioners much after the Government order dated 14th June, 1985. 9. and planting of new crops were restricted vide notification dated 14th May, 1985, which was followed by further order dated 14th June, 1985 imposing restriction/freezing allotment oi land to private individuals. There is no dispute that the LSCs in questions were issued to the petitioners much after the Government order dated 14th June, 1985. 9. As discussed in the impugned judgment, 2(two) writ petitions in the form of PIL registered and numbered as Civil Rule Nos. 1759 and 1763/1988 were filed seeking compensation following acquisition of the land under Section 17 of the LA Act and by invalidating the LSCs. The petitioners were not party to the same. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 20th July, 1994 while rejecting the writ petitions, however, granted liberty for agitating the individual rights. Significantly it was also observed that settlement certificates issued were the result of fraudulent practise's indulged in by the petitioners concerned. 10. As noted above, the writ petition was filed long 24 (twenty-four) years of the impugned order dated 8th August, 1988 and 7 (seven) years of the other 2 (two) impugned orders of 2005. There is absolutely no explanation as to the cause of such huge delay. In the writ petition, the petitioners contended that their valuable rights had been affected because of cancellation of the LSCs. However, as noted above, there was absolutely no explanation as to why they could not approach the Court within a reasonable period of time. Coupled with this, there was also no explanation in respect of the above quoted observation of the Division Bench in the order passed in the 2 (two) PILs. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge with the following observations rightly held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. "30. By the impugned orders, valuable rights of the petitioners were affected, firstly by declaring their LSCs as invalid and thereafter, by cancelling those LSCs. Therefore, there can be no justification for such a belated challenge as it is beyond one's comprehension that an affected party, whose property rights were extinguished, will wait so long to seek redress. In such circumstances, there can be no escape from the inevitable conclusion that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. 31. Therefore, there can be no justification for such a belated challenge as it is beyond one's comprehension that an affected party, whose property rights were extinguished, will wait so long to seek redress. In such circumstances, there can be no escape from the inevitable conclusion that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. 31. In view of the above finding and coupled with the finding recorded earlier by a Division Bench of this Court that the settlement certificates issued, which were declared as invalid, were the result of fraudulent practise's indulged in by the petitioners concerned, the Court is of the unhesitant view that no relief can be granted by the Court to the petitioners in exercise of its discretionary powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India." 11. Notwithstanding the above position, the learned Single Judge also decided the writ petition on merit against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. As discussed in the impugned judgment, a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 114/2000 was filed by one Shri Lalrivenga and another seeking compensation for land acquisition. That was a case in which the petitioners had purchased periodic patta lands in the year 1984, which were later on converted into agricultural land with the issuance of Agricultural Land Settlement Certificates (ALSC), which were again converted into House Site Land Settlement Certificates (HSLSC). Although the land was acquisitioned but compensation was not paid on the ground that the HSLSCs were declared invalid vide the impugned order dated 8th August, 1988. It was agreed by both sides that although HSLSCs were declared invalid, but the ALSC remained valid on account of which the petitioners were entitled to land compensation. 12. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 1/2005 and a Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. On further appeal before the Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No. 7825/2011, the Division Bench judgment was reversed and the learned Single Judge's order was restored. This was done vide judgment and order dated 13th September, 2011. It was recorded in the order of the Apex Court that those petitioners had purchased the land in 1984 and the Settlement Officer issued LSCs in 1987 after duly scrutinising the applications made for that purpose. This was done vide judgment and order dated 13th September, 2011. It was recorded in the order of the Apex Court that those petitioners had purchased the land in 1984 and the Settlement Officer issued LSCs in 1987 after duly scrutinising the applications made for that purpose. It was in such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the impugned orders of 1988 and 1985 did not restrict the right of the petitioners involved in the said proceeding in respect of their lands. For a ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment of the Apex Court is quoted below:- "14. We also agree with Shri Mukherjee that the Land Settlement Certificates issued in favour of the appellants could not have been cancelled on the ground that the same were issued without the sanction or approval of the competent authority. The respondents have not controverted the appellant's assertion that vide order dated 18.1.1983, respondent No. 2 had authorised the Assistant Settlement Officer-II to process and decide the applications for grant of the Land Settlement Certificates. It is also not in dispute that the appellants had purchased land in 1984 and the Settlement Officer had issued the Land Settlement Certificates in 1987 after duly scrutinising the applications made for that purpose. This action of the concerned officer was not in violation of order dated 14.6.1985 vide which allotment of land to private individuals was restricted/freezed along the main National Highway and the road leading to old Zokhawsang village which was earmarked for shifting of First Assam Rifles. Indeed it was neither the pleaded case of the respondents before the High Court nor any evidence was produced to show that the land in question had been allotted to the appellants by any public authority." 13. The facts involved in the said case are clearly distinguishable with the facts involved in the present proceeding. Unlike the case in hand, the petitioners involved in W.P. (C) No. 114/2000 had purchased the periodic patta land in the year 1984, which were later on converted into ALSCs and thereafter, again into HSLSCs. On the other hand, in the case in hand irrespective of the notifications of 1985, referred to above putting restrictions, the petitioners were issued with LSCs in a fraudulent manner. Distinguishing the fact involved in W.P. (C) No. 114/2000 with that of the present writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed thus :- "37. On the other hand, in the case in hand irrespective of the notifications of 1985, referred to above putting restrictions, the petitioners were issued with LSCs in a fraudulent manner. Distinguishing the fact involved in W.P. (C) No. 114/2000 with that of the present writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed thus :- "37. A careful reading of the above judgments would reveal the factual divergence of the said case and the present one. In that case, admittedly, the lands which were then under periodic patta, were purchased in the year 1984 and the conversion took place in the year 1987. Therefore, it was held that the said action was not in violation of the Government order dated 14.06.1985. Moreover, that was a case where the petitioners were held entitled to limited compensation under Agricultural Land Settlement Certificates. In the present case, the LSCs were issued for the first time after the restriction order dated 14.06.1985. However, the present petitioners were also given limited compensation for standing crops. Facts and issue in tine present case are qualitatively different from the case. The issue in the present case is as to whether the authority could have issued the LSCs to the petitioners after the Government order dated 14.06.1985. Considering the background facts of the present case as already noticed, the answer to the question posed above can only be in the negative. In such circumstances, the Court is of the unhesitant view that petitioners are not entitled to any relief." 14. In view of the above, we see no reason to take a different view of the matter than the one the learned Single Judge has taken vide the impugned judgment and order dated 19th February, 2013 passed in W.P. (C) No. 27/2012. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed without, however, any order to costs.