JUDGMENT : Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. Heard Mr. L. H. Lianhriama, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate, Mizoram for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Standing counsel, Forest Department for respondent No. 3. 2. Issue involved in this writ petition is whether the State respondents are unauthorisedly occupying the land of the petitioners constructing Aizawl Zoological Park over it and thereby illegally deprived them from using the benefit of said land without paying any rent or compensation. 3. With regard to the land involved in the case, the contentions of the petitioners herein are that the President of Sakawrtuichhun Village Council on 05.02.1971 initially issued them Village Council Passes. Later the Revenue Department with the approval of the Government made fresh allotment of said land by issuing Agricultural Land Settlement Certificates (LSCs) bearing Nos. (i) No. G.162 of 1987, (ii) No. G. 163 of 1987, (iii) No. G. 164 of 1987, (iv) No. G. 165 of 1987, (v) No. G. 166 of 1987 and (vi) No. G. 167 of 1987 to the petitioners No. 1 to 6 respectively under Section 4 (2) of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 and Rules 6 and 19 of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Rules 1971. The petitioners stated that their land under those LSCs are within the boundary of Aizawl Town area covering Sairang as per the Notification No. J.43011/1/98/-REV dated 04.10.2000 issued by the Revenue Department of the State under the provisions of Section 15 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956 as amended in 1976, which was published in the Mizoram Gazette on 25.10.2000. 4. It is stated by the petitioners that they are regularly paying revenue and tax for their land specified in those LSC's, over which the State respondents in the year 2000 built a mini Zoo and also constructed a road to go to the same. The petitioners stated that the Forest Department of the State should not have encroached their said land depriving them from all benefits from it and that though they lodged several complaints since 27.04.2000 before the Revenue Department as well as the Environment and Forest Department of the State, the respondents did not pay any heed to it. 5. The petitioners stated that the Forest Department of the State should not have encroached their said land depriving them from all benefits from it and that though they lodged several complaints since 27.04.2000 before the Revenue Department as well as the Environment and Forest Department of the State, the respondents did not pay any heed to it. 5. The petitioners stated that the Clause 4 of the Terms and Conditions of Settlement of those LSCs clearly stipulates that The land may partly or wholly be acquired by the Government of Mizoram or Officer so authorized for public purposes on payment of reasonable compensation and the petitioners submitted that in the present case the respondents are forcibly occupying their land without following the due procedure established by law, thereby depriving them from the benefits of their own land. 6. For the said land, the petitioners earlier preferred WP(C) No.3/2002 and it was disposed of on 17.06.2003 with the following observation -- "Upon hearing the learned counsels for both sides, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the Petitioners will be at liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Aizawl with their claim in respect of non-reserved Forest area as and when such applications are filed the District Magistrate, Aizawl shall examine and verify the matter and after hearing both sides and hearing Forest and Revenue Department the matter shall be deposed of by the District Magistrate within a period of 6 months from the date of filing the application in accordance with rules and regulation." 7. Against the said order dated 17.06.2003 passed in WP(C) No.3/2002, the State preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 5/2006. The Writ Appellate Court dismissed the same 08.06.2009 with the observation that -- "It appears from the order dated 17.06.2003, passed by the learned Single Judge that what has been directed is to decide the representation that may be filed by the writ petitioners, who are the respondents herein relating to the claim in accordance with law. No direction has been recorded in favour of the petitioner. It is left open to the District Magistrate to decide the representation, if filed by the writ petitioners, in accordance with law and keeping in view the materials available on record. Such an order does not require interference in the appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed. No cost. 8. No direction has been recorded in favour of the petitioner. It is left open to the District Magistrate to decide the representation, if filed by the writ petitioners, in accordance with law and keeping in view the materials available on record. Such an order does not require interference in the appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed. No cost. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 17.06.2003 passed in WP(C) No.3/2002, the petitioners in the meanwhile on 01.08.2003 itself filed their representation, but due to the pendency of the said writ appeal, the District Magistrate/District Collector, Aizawl, Mizoram did not consider the same. As it was not considered even after disposal of said Writ Appeal No. 5/2006, the petitioners preferred a contempt petition being Cont. Case (C) No. 11/2014 for non compliance of said order dated 17.06.2003. But on the ground of limitation, said contempt petition was dismissed on 29.10.2014. 9. It is stated that as they have become remedy less, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 10. The State respondents in the Environment and Forest Department as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl have filed their affidavits and Joint Verification Reports. 11. The contention of the respondents herein is that land involved the present case is within the Reserved Forest Land of Mizoram since the days it was a part of undivided Assam. To that extent the respondents placed before the Court that the then Chief Executive Member of the then Mizo District Council on 28.01.1965 notified that -- In exercise of the power conferred by Section 14 read with section 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955, the Mizo District Council is pleased to constitute the following areas at the disposal of Mizo District Council as Council Reserved Forest w.e.f. the date of notification issued on 15th April, 1956 and 16th September1957. 12. The State respondents also place before the Court that the said notification was published in the Assam Gazette on 19th May, 1965 wherein it is clearly mentioned that Forests within half a mile on either side of the Aizawl Silchar Road via Sairang, excluding the land within 100 feet or 30 meters on both sides of Government roads are Reserved Forest of Mizo District Council. 13. 13. By an order dated 26.05.2016 the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, respondent No.4 to make spot verification of the land involved in the case in the presence of the petitioners or their authorised agents, personnel and authorities of the Forest Department as well as Revenue Department of the State and to submit the report as to whether petitioners land involved in the case were taken over for construction of the Aizawl Zoological Park/Mino Zoo or not. 14. Pursuant to the same the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, submitted a report dated 08.08.2016 stating that spot verification was done in presence of all the persons and that Aizawl Zoological Park is fenced at 8 - 10 meters from the Aizawl- Sairang-Silchar Road and that the land of the Aizawl Zoological Park and the land of the LSCs of the petitioners are overlapped with each other. 15. However, the said report of 08.08.2016 did not specify whether the land of the petitioners' are within 100 feet or 30 meters from the Aizawl Silchar Road via Sairang. As such by order dated 15.02.2017 the Court again directed the said Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and the authorities of the Revenue Department of the State to make spot verification of petitioners' land in presence of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Aizawl as well as the petitioners or their authorized representative and to submit a report after such verification including the verification of land documents of the petitioners in original and up to date, to clarify as to whether the land of the petitioners are within 100 feet or 30 meters of said Aizawl Silchar Road via Sairang or not. 16. The Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 27.04.2018 filed an affidavit annexing the report of such survey made on 08.03.2018 and clarified that a part of the land of petitioners' LSCs fall within the 100 feet or 30 meters Road Side Government land of said Aizawal Silchar Road via Sairang and the remaining part within the Reserved Forest Area. 17. 16. The Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 27.04.2018 filed an affidavit annexing the report of such survey made on 08.03.2018 and clarified that a part of the land of petitioners' LSCs fall within the 100 feet or 30 meters Road Side Government land of said Aizawal Silchar Road via Sairang and the remaining part within the Reserved Forest Area. 17. The respondents also place before the Court that petitioners are the members of the same family and that with regard to the said land, initially they were allotted Village Council Passes by the President of Sakawrtuichhun Village Council and later the Assistant Settlement Officer of Land Revenue & Settlement, Mizoram, Aizawl illegally converted those passes into the LSCs in the year 1987 providing Certificates of Agricultural Land Settlement to the petitioners without having any authority to allot such LSCs and without obtaining any prior approval of the Government. The respondents also stated that when the land involved in the case are Reserved Forest Land of the State of Mizoram since May, 1955 and Road Side Government land of Aizawal Silchar Road via Sairang, the said Assistant Settlement Officer of Land Revenue & Settlement, Mizoram, Aizawl could not have given Non-Encumbrance Certificate to the petitioners in the year 1987, which they have annexed to their writ petition. 18. The respondents also brought to the notice of the Court that it is already settled that the Village Councils in Mizoram since the days of the Lushai Hills District cannot make any allotment and/or cannot grant any pass to its people except the allotment for 'House Site' under the provisions of the Lushai Hills District (House Sites) Act, 1953, which was extended to whole of Mizoram excepting the areas under the Autonomous District Councils of Pawai, Lakher and Chakma. 19. Mizoram, a Tribal area, was earlier known as Lushai Hills District. During the time of British era, said Lushai Hills District, formed on 01.04.1898, was placed under the Administration of the Chief Commissioner of Assam. After the independence of India, Lushai Hills District became an Autonomous District under the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of India and remained as a part of undivided Assam. During the time of British era, said Lushai Hills District, formed on 01.04.1898, was placed under the Administration of the Chief Commissioner of Assam. After the independence of India, Lushai Hills District became an Autonomous District under the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of India and remained as a part of undivided Assam. By an Act, namely, the Lushai Hills District (Change of Name) Act, 1954, i.e. Act No. 18 of 1954, said Lushai Hills District came to be known as Mizo District and accordingly the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India was amended and Mizo District Council was formed w.e.f. 25.04.1952. By an Act, namely, the Assam-Lushai Hills District (Acquisition of Chief's Rights) Act, 1954, i.e. Assam Act No. XXI of 1954, amended in 1955, Chieftainship that was prevalent in Lushai Hills District/Mizo District was abolished and the administration of Chiefs was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Mizo District Council w.e.f. 01.04.1954 and to the Pawi-Lakher Regional Council, formed on 23.04.1953, w.e.f. 15.04.1954. After the North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971 came in to force in 1972, said Mizo District became a Union Territory on 21.01.1972 and thereafter, on signing the Memorandum of Settlement between the Government of India and the Mizo National Front in June 1986, Mizoram obtained its statehood w.e.f. 20.02.1987. 20. After said Mizo District became a Union Territory on 21.01.1972, in exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph 20A of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, the Administration of the Union Territory of Mizoram enacted the Dissolution of the Mizo District Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1972 and everything that was under the control of said Mizo District Council was transferred to the Administration of the Union Territory of Mizoram as per the provisions of said 1972 Orders and all laws made by the erstwhile Mizo District Council continued to remain in force in the Union Territory of Mizoram as per said 1972 Orders. Similarly, after the signing of the Memorandum of Settlement in June 1986 with regard to the statehood of Mizoram, the State of Mizoram Act, 1986 was enacted by the Parliament on 14.08.1986 and under the provisions of Section 43 of said 1986 Act, all laws in force, existing in the Union Territory of Mizoram continued to be in force in the State of Mizoram altered, repealed or amended by the competent Legislature or other competent authority. 21. 21. Accordingly, the land involved in the present case remained to be Reserved Forest Land since the dates of Notifications issued on 16.04.1956 and 16.09.1957 issued under the provisions of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 and there is no dispute by either of the parties in that regard. 22. Petitioners' contention that with regard to said land LSCs were issued to them by the Revenue Department of the State under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 and Rules 6 and 19 of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Rules 1971. It is also the contention of the petitioners that for the said land, passes were originally allotted to them by the President of Sakawrtuichhun Village Council on 05.02.1971. 23. It is already settled that Village Councils of Mizoram have no authority to issue any pass or allot land under its jurisdiction except 'House Site' and petitioner claimed their land to be agricultural land. 24. Petitioners failed to show any prior approval of the State Government while granting the LSCs to them and also failed to show that the Assistant Settlement Officer of Land Revenue & Settlement, Mizoram, Aizawl is empowered to issue those LSCs, i.e., the Certificates of Agricultural Land Settlement as well as the Non-Encumbrance Certificate to them with regard to the Reserved Forest Land. 25. From the joint spot verifications reports of the land involved in the case, it is seen that the Assistant Settlement Officer issued the impugned LSCs to the petitioners by allotting large area of Reserved Forest Land of the State in one part and another area on the Road Side Government land of the Aizawl - Sairang - Silchar Road. The petitioners did not dispute with the verification reports nor raised any dispute that land involved in the case and the impugned LSCs are not Reserved Forest Land or not Road Side Government land of the said road. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. -Vs- Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1996) 5 SCC 194 have laid down that once a notification under relevant Act declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person comes to an end and are no longer available. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. -Vs- Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1996) 5 SCC 194 have laid down that once a notification under relevant Act declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person comes to an end and are no longer available. The notification is binding on the consolidation authorities in the same way as a decree of a civil court. When the land in dispute was rightly declared and notified as reserve forest the respondents have no rights or claims or any interest in the said land. 27. In the case of State of Karnataka -Vs- I.S. Nirvane Gowda,2007 15 SCC 744, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held When the lands were included in reserve forest, the entries in the revenue records were of no consequence and further, mere saguvali chits did not confer any title on the suit lands. This apart, the Revenue Authorities were not competent to deal with the property which was the part of the reserved forest. 28. In the case in hand land was already declared as Reserve Forest by Notifications dated 16.04.1956 and 16.09.1957 issued under the provisions of Sections 14 and 21 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 which were issued by the competent authority Mizo District Council at the relevant time and in that regard Notification dated 28.01.1965 was published in the Assam Gazette on 19.05.1965, which are not in dispute. 29. Therefore, subsequent allotment of said land either by the authority of Sakawrtuichhun Village Council on 05.02.1971 or by issuing the impugned LSCs to the petitioners by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Land Revenue & Settlement, Mizoram, Aizawl in the year 1987 or due to any entry in the revenue records of the State thereafter, cannot confer any legal right to the petitioners either over the Reserve Forest Land as well as on the Road Side Government land of the Aizawl - Sairang - Silchar Road. 30. For the reasons above and on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.