JUDGMENT : Lanusungkum Jamir, J. 1. The appellant is a permanent resident of Melthum, Aizawl. The appellant was allotted land pass vide Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 on 02.11.1970 by the Mizoram District Council, Executive Department through the Assistant Settlement Officer-I, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Aizawl District, Aizawl. In Misc.. Pass No. 12/1970, the area of the land (in Bigha) is shown as 10 Bigha and the boundary of the land is quoted as under :- "Boundary :- East: Start from the unreserved area towards at the Damlam, 50 fts to be taken at the Theitat tree area on the tarn road towards Saikhamakawn jungle path till stream. South: Start from the public jungle path till the stream West: Start at the end of village on the tall Khiang tree till the stream on the both sides. North: Till the stream." Thereafter, the appellant took over possession over the land as per described boundary in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. The appellant also paid revenue to the Government against the said land. While the appellant was under peaceful occupation of his land, the Directorate of Land Revenue & Settlement, Aizawl, Mizoram/respondent No. 5 issued an order dated 04.10.1996 on the basis of representation received from the Village Council and Young Mizo Association, Melthum that the appellant is maintaining his land beyond the land prescribed by Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. On the basis of the complaint, Surveyors were deputed to verify and re-demarcate the pass and on the basis of the report of the Surveyors, it was found that instead of 10 Bighas, the appellant was claiming occupation of 34.65 Bighas. Therefore, a decision was given by letter dated 16.09.1996 that the appellant has rightful claim of the actual area of 10 Bighas as shown in the Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 and the land in excess will be utilized for public purpose and for allotment to the landless persons. The said decision was reflected in order dated 04.10.1996 issued by the respondent No. 5. The Government thereafter, took a decision for bringing up House Sites Plan at Melthum Thlanmual Ram but the same was abandoned and status quo was maintained by an order dated 12.1.2005. The said decision was reflected in order dated 04.10.1996 issued by the respondent No. 5. The Government thereafter, took a decision for bringing up House Sites Plan at Melthum Thlanmual Ram but the same was abandoned and status quo was maintained by an order dated 12.1.2005. Thereafter, by a communication dated 06.06.2007 addressed to the Director, Directorate of Land Revenue & Settlement, Aizawl, Mizoram/respondent No. 5 written by the respondent No. 6, approval was conveyed for House Sites in respect of 38 persons at Melthun House Site Plan. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge-1, Aizawl District, Mizoram by way of Title Suit No. 21/2007 with the following prayers:- "The Plaintiff therefore prays: (i) That a decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants declaring that the Plaintiff is the owner and title holder of the Suit Land measuring 34.65 bighas covered by Misc.. Pass No. 12 of 1970 as per the boundary demarcation mentioned in the said pass of the Plaintiff. (ii) That a decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against all the Defendants not to disturb the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and occupation of the Suit Land in any way. (iii) That a decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against all the Defendants canceling any allotment of land to any person within the boundary description of the said Misc.. Pass No. 12 of 1970. (iv) That a decree of mandatory permanent injunction be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against all the Defendants not to disturb the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and occupation of the Suit Land in any way and that the House Site Plan made by the Defendants be cancelled. (v) That a decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants that the Plaintiff is legally entitled as per the provisions of law, justice, equity and good conscience." The learned Trial Court thereafter, framed three issues which read as under:- "1. Whether the suit is maintainable or not 2. Whether the plaintiff in excess of the area stipulated in his Misc. Pass No. 12 of 1970 had occupied the suit land 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not. Whether the suit is maintainable or not 2. Whether the plaintiff in excess of the area stipulated in his Misc. Pass No. 12 of 1970 had occupied the suit land 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not. If so, to what extend." Thereafter, after leading evidence and on hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 by which the suit was dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the present appeal. 4. Heard Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 as well as Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent Nos. 13 to 28. 5. Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant after being issued Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 had taken over the possession of the said land in terms of the boundaries described in the said pass. The appellant was thereafter under the bonafide belief that the area described as 10 Bighas was the actual area falling within the boundaries described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. However, it was later found that the area falling within the boundaries described was about 34.65 Bighas and thereafter, the respondents had issued the impugned order dated 04.10.1996 taking a decision that the appellant was entitled to only 10 Bighas in terms of the Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 and the land in excess shall be utilized for public purpose and for allotment to the landless persons. It is submitted that the appellant is in occupation of the land in terms of the boundaries described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 and therefore, whether the area is shown as 10 Bighas or more, the appellant is entitled to occupation of the area of land within the boundaries described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court had examined witnesses and thereafter, with regard to Issue No. 3, the learned Trial Court had come to the finding that the genuineness of the Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is not disputed as deposed by the DW-1. Therefore, when the genuineness of Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is not under dispute, the appellant is entitled for occupation of the area that falls within the boundaries described in the said pass. It is submitted that despite the finding that the genuineness of Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is not disputed as deposed by the DW-1. Therefore, when the genuineness of Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is not under dispute, the appellant is entitled for occupation of the area that falls within the boundaries described in the said pass. It is submitted that despite the finding that the genuineness of Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is not disputed, the learned Trial Court had came to a perverse finding that the appellant would be entitled only to 10 Bighas as has been wrongly shown in the Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. It is submitted that the law is already settled in this matter wherein, it has been held that where there is a dispute between the area and the boundary, the description of the boundaries will prevail. To that effect, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the cases of (i) Subhaga & Ors. v. Shobha & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 466 , (ii) Arsad Sheikh & Anr. v. Bani Prosanna Kundu & Ors., reported in (2014) 15 SCC as well as the judgment and order passed by this Court in the cases of (iii) Smti V.L. Buki v. State of Mizoram & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 7 of 2007) and in the case of (iv) Smti Malsawmi Pautu & Ors. v. The State of Mizoram & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 109 of 2009). She, therefore, contends that the law being already settled in this matter, the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 be set aside and the appellant be allowed peaceful occupation of the area of the land within the boundaries described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. 6. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the area of the land prescribed in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is only 10 Bighas and therefore, the appellant, under no circumstances can occupy any area beyond 10 Bighas. The claim of the appellant that the area falling under Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is 34.65 Bighas is totally baseless and therefore, the learned trial court had rightly passed the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 by which the claim of the appellant was dismissed. The claim of the appellant that the area falling under Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 is 34.65 Bighas is totally baseless and therefore, the learned trial court had rightly passed the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 by which the claim of the appellant was dismissed. He submits that prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 04.10.1996, two Surveyors were detailed to measure the land of the appellant wherein, it was found that the appellant was in occupation of more than 10 Bighas which was beyond the area prescribed in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. He, therefore, submits that the official respondents had taken a decision that the appellant will have rightful claim only over the actual area of 10 Bighas and the land in excess will be utilized for public purpose and for allotment to the landless persons in terms of the decision of the Government. The respondent No. 6 had thereafter, issued the communication dated 6.6.2007 conveying the approval of the Government for house sites in respect of 38 number of persons. He submits that the appellant has right only to occupy 10 Bighas as permitted by Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 and not beyond that area. It is also submitted that the appellant from the date of issuance of Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 has been paying revenue only with regard to 10 Bighas which would also clearly indicate that the appellant had accepted the area prescribed in the said pass and his occupation is only for 10 Bighas and therefore no interference is required in the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the private respondent Nos. 13 to 28, on the other hand, submits that when the appellant filed Title Suit No. 21/2007 as plaintiff, the onus of proving that the appellant is entitled to 34.65 Bighas was upon him, which he could not prove before the learned Trial Court and therefore, the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 does not suffer from any infirmity and in his support, he has placed reliance in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 . He also submits that there is no survey report upon which the appellant can place reliance to support that the land under his occupation is 34.65 Bighas. v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 269 . He also submits that there is no survey report upon which the appellant can place reliance to support that the land under his occupation is 34.65 Bighas. It is also submitted that the appellant had at no point of time, approached the concerned authority for verification of the area described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 and he has been sleeping over his rights all along till the issuance of the order dated 04.10.1996 and the letter dated 06.06.2007. 8. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 has been considered by this Court. A consideration of the same would clearly indicate that the area of the land is shown as 10 Bighas and the boundaries have been clearly demarcated. There is no dispute amongst the parties with regard to the boundaries as described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. The only dispute is with regard to the area of the land within the boundaries described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. In this respect, it is also already settled that when there is dispute between the area and the boundaries, descriptions of the boundaries will prevail. In the case of Malsawmi Pautu (supra) and in the case of Smti V.L. Buki (supra), a consistent decision has been taken by this Court that when there is dispute between the area and the boundaries, the boundaries will prevail. In the present case in hand, as already discussed herein above, there is no dispute with regard to the boundaries which is described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. The only dispute is with regard to the area of the land. 10. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote the findings of the learned Trial Court with regard to issue No. 3 which is reproduced herein below :- Issue No. 3 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not. If so, to what extend. As per the findings under issue No. 2, I find that the plaintiff did not entitled any relief in excess of the area embodied in his Misc. Pass No. 12 of 1970 whilst the genuineness of the said pass is undisputed as deposed by the lone DW. If so, to what extend. As per the findings under issue No. 2, I find that the plaintiff did not entitled any relief in excess of the area embodied in his Misc. Pass No. 12 of 1970 whilst the genuineness of the said pass is undisputed as deposed by the lone DW. I therefore could not have any other findings except the findings of the Revenue Department under Memo No. D. 11013/8/97-Tech/DTE (REV) Dt. Aizawl, the 21st Nov/1997, the area covered by Garden Pass No. was only 2 bighas but claimed 12.43 bighas by the plaintiff. More so, the area covered by Pass No. 12/2007 was only 10 bighas but claimed 34.65 bighas by the plaintiff." 11. This Court has also taken into consideration the deposition of DW-1 wherein, he has stated that the defendants has no objection with regard to genuineness of the Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 except that the claim of the plaintiff is beyond the area of the pass. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the deposition of DW-1 and has come to the conclusion that the genuineness of the pass is not disputed. 12. On a consideration of the whole aspect of the matter, the only issue that requires consideration of this Court in the present appeal is, whether the dispute with regard to the area should prevail or the boundaries that is described in the Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 would prevail. The law being already settled in this respect, this Court holds that the boundaries described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 shall prevail and the appellant shall be entitled to occupy the area that falls within the boundaries described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970. 13. This Court has taken into consideration the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the appellant has been paying land revenue only with regard to 10 Bighas of land. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper that the respondents more particularly, the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 should depute technical experts to measure the land of the appellant in accordance with the boundaries that is described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 and thereafter, the appellant shall pay revenue to the concerned Department as per the area within the described boundaries in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 in terms of measurement to be done. 2 and 5 should depute technical experts to measure the land of the appellant in accordance with the boundaries that is described in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 and thereafter, the appellant shall pay revenue to the concerned Department as per the area within the described boundaries in Misc. Pass No. 12/1970 in terms of measurement to be done. Let such exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court by the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. 14. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-1, Aizawl District, Mizoram in Title Suit No. 21/2007 is set aside and quashed. 15. The appeal is allowed. 16. No costs. In appreciation of the service rendered by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned Amicus Curiae, he shall be entitled to fees of Rs. 15,000/- which shall be paid by the Mizoram Legal Services Authority on production of a Certified True Copy of the order of this Court. Registry is also directed to furnish a Certified True Copy of the order of this Court to the learned Amicus Curiae free of cost. Send down the LCRs forthwith.