Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1100 (GAU)

UNION OF INDIA v. K. CHALKHUMA

2017-08-10

M.R.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Subhash Chandra Keyal, learned Asstt. SGI, assisted by Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the appellants. Also heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7. This appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Court of learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl whereby the learned Trial Court decreed the Declaratory Suit No. 3/1998, that was preferred by the predecessor or the present respondent Nos. 1 & 2, in which the appellants herein were the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the present respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were the defendant Nos. 6 to 10. 2. By the impugned judgment & order dated 10.07.2007 the present appellants were directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the legal representatives of both the original plaintiffs and to give vacant possession of the land involved in the case to those two plaintiffs within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of issue of the said order, with the observation that if the present appellants fail to hand over the vacant possession of the said land of the plaintiffs within the said time of 6 (six) months, in that event, the plaintiffs are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for their adequate reliefs. 3. The contention of the plaintiffs in the said Declaratory Suit No. 3/1998 is that as per the direction of the Revenue Department, at Lunglei, the Village Council, Tawipui 'N' earmarked two plots of land for the plaintiffs at Tawipui 'N' in the month of January 1971 over which they immediately planted large numbers of Trees and Fruit bearing plants including pineapple, orange, plantain, etc. The authorities concerned in the year 1972 vide Nos. 104/L of 1972 and 105/L of 1972 respectively issued permit for the said land to both the plaintiffs. But in the beginning of the year 1973, the personnel's of the BRTF (Border Road Task Force) under 'Project Pushpak' had occupied the said land of the plaintiffs and damaged all their plants and trees over it that were planted by them. 104/L of 1972 and 105/L of 1972 respectively issued permit for the said land to both the plaintiffs. But in the beginning of the year 1973, the personnel's of the BRTF (Border Road Task Force) under 'Project Pushpak' had occupied the said land of the plaintiffs and damaged all their plants and trees over it that were planted by them. In their said plaint, the plaintiffs also stated that in March 1973 the defendants/present appellants constructed a permanent workshop within their said land without their consent and permission and that they are in continuous possession of the said land. The plaintiffs also stated that the Asst. Settlement Officer, Lunglei District, Lunglei converted their said permits bearing Nos. 104/L and 105/L of 1972 to Periodic Pattas Nos. 562/1977 and 300 of 1997 respectively and validity of those Periodic Pattas have been renewed from time to time till the filing of the said Suit and they have also paid the necessary tax as and when it were due and cleared all the Taxes till the filing of the said Suit. 4. In the said Suit, the plaintiffs, amongst others, sought for the following reliefs: (i) a decree be passed declaring that by virtue of the periodic Pattas issued in favour of plaintiffs they have the right over the said property during the validity of the said Patta. (ii) a decree be passed declaring the plaintiffs are entitled to get compensation for the crops destroyed by the defendant No. 3 through his men at the rate fixed by the deputy commissioner. (iii) a decree be passed declaring that the plaintiffs are liable to get rent from the defendant No. 3 and his men (defendant Nos. 4 & 5) at the rate of 50 paise per Square feet per year for illegal occupation of the said land and interest over the said sum at the rate of 16.5% per annum. (iv) a decree be passed declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to get vacant possession of the said land and in the event of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 require the said land, the said land should be acquired as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the plaintiffs are entitled to adequate compensation. 5. The present appellants as well as the State respondent Nos. 1 to 5 require the said land, the said land should be acquired as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the plaintiffs are entitled to adequate compensation. 5. The present appellants as well as the State respondent Nos. 3 to 7, as defendants, file their respective written statements in the said Suit and they raised the issue that the said Suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, Doctrine of Estoppels and Acquiescence. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court, framed the following issues in the said Suit, which are:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (iii) Whether the crops were destroyed by the defendants. If so, which defendant? And how much? (iv) Whether the suit land belongs to the plaintiffs? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed, if so to what extent? 6. The Trial Court considering various decisions of this Court, placed on behalf of the plaintiffs, by the impugned judgment & order dated 10.07.2007 passed in the said Declaratory Suit No. 3/1998 came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable in the State of Mizoram and proceeded with the adjudication of the said Suit and passed the said impugned judgment & order. 7. At the time of admission of this appeal, this Court by order dated 02.07.2012 directed the appellants herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only with the Registry of this Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks with the observation that on such deposit, the Registry shall keep the said amount in interest bearing deposit in a Nationalized Bank. Accordingly, the appellants deposited the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) with the Registry of this Court in compliance of the said order dated 02.07.2012. 8. Accordingly, the appellants deposited the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) with the Registry of this Court in compliance of the said order dated 02.07.2012. 8. During pendency of this appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 08.09.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3536/2008 in the case of J. Thansiama v. State of Mizoram & Others, reported in 2015 (9) SCALE 618 : 2015 (5) GLT (SC) 7 have held that the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the State of Mizoram and the Notification No. TAD/GA/12/64 dated 14.04.1966 issued by the then Governor of Assam by which the operation of the Limitation Act, 1963 was excluded from the tribal areas of Assam as specified in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution would not continue to be applicable to the Union Territory of Mizoram and the successor State of Mizoram by virtue of section 24 of the General Clauses Act, since the provisions of the General Clauses Act is not applicable in the case. 9. Since the decision regarding applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that the said 1963 Act is applicable in the State of Mizoram and one of the ground amongst others in this appeal is that the Trial Court wronged in its impugned judgment & order dated 10.07.2007 in appreciation of the legal provisions regarding laws of the Limitation Act, holding that Law of Limitation is not applicable in the State of Mizoram and therefore prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned Judgment & Order 10.07.2007 passed by the then Court of learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 3 of 1988. 10. The impugned judgment & order dated 10.07.2007 passed in said Declaratory Suit No. 3 of 1998 was passed prior to the separation of judiciary from executive in the State of Mizoram. 11. Considering entire aspect of the matter and as it settled that Law of Limitation is applicable in the State of Mizoram, apparently the Trial Court committed illegality while passing the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.07.2007. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.07.2007 passed in said Declaratory Suit No. 3 of 1998 that was preferred by the predecessors of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as plaintiffs, now represented by the respondent Nos. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.07.2007 passed in said Declaratory Suit No. 3 of 1998 that was preferred by the predecessors of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as plaintiffs, now represented by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is set aside and quashed and the entire matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, for proper adjudication of the said Suit, where appropriate order shall be passed, afresh, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. 12. Both the parties to this appeal are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl on 04.09.2017. 13. Since this order has been passed in the presence of the counsels for both the appellants and the respondents, learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl need not issue any formal notice to the parties of said Declaratory Suit No. 3 of 1998. 14. Registry shall return the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl forthwith. 15. The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) that was deposited by the appellants vide Demand Draft No. 344824 dated 05.10.2012, pursuant to the order dated 02.07.2012 passed earlier in this appeal, shall now be returned by the Registry of this Court, on proper application of the appellants, to their duly authorized person, on his proper identification and by obtaining necessary receipt from him. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands allowed.