JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellants and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellants, i.e. Environment & Forest Department against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei in Civil Suit No. 8 of 2007 and also against the Decree drawn on 11.12.2014 by the Senior Civil Judge. The appeal is filed under Section 17 (2) (b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The appellants were the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 before the learned Trial Court and they will be being referred as the appellants for convenience in the present appeal. The respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court and will be referred to as the respondent No. 1 in the present appeal for convenience as well. 4. Brief facts of the case is that the father of the respondent No. 1 i.e. Sh. A. Ngunhulha was allotted a plot of land measuring an area of 25.26 bighas at Khawmawi below Ngengpui stream by the Revenue Department through Periodic Patta No. 289 of 1978. The father of the respondent No. 1 looked after the said plot of land by planting different kinds of fruit bearing trees. On 23.01.2002, the Periodic Patta was transferred in the name of the respondent No. 1 and it was converted into an Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate No. 210506/10/2 of 2006. According to the respondent No. 1, in the month of October, 1981, the Forest Department Personnel started felling the trees and to which, his father sent a letter to the appellant No. 3 requesting him not to construct any Beat Quarters within his land. On 28.06.1981, the Forest Department, Government of Mizoram issued a preliminary notification under Sections, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 (Forest Act of 1955) read with I proposing to constitute the land described as “Ngengpui Ram” as a Forest Reserved Land. On 28.06.1981, the Forest Department, Government of Mizoram issued a preliminary notification under Sections, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Mizo District (Forest) Act, 1955 (Forest Act of 1955) read with I proposing to constitute the land described as “Ngengpui Ram” as a Forest Reserved Land. By issuing the notification, claims inside the Reserve Forest if any was invited and the same should be made in writing within a period of 120 days to the authority who published the notification. Thereafter, a final notification declaring “Ngengpui Ram” as “Ngengpui Reserved Forest” alongwith “Reserved Forest of Tawipui North” was issued on 11.03.1982 and was published in the Mizoram Gazette on the same date. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that despite the protest of his father, his land was included within the “Ngengpui Reserved Forest”. In the month of October, 1982, the respondent No. 1 approached the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Lunglei and requested him to evict the Forest Department Personnels from his land but the same was of no avail. Thereafter, when the respondent No. 1s father approached the appellant No. 4, he was promised that his brother will be permanently employed as a Driver in the Forest Department. However, no such appointment was made. 5. The respondent No. 1 then approached the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Lunglei, who was in charge of the Revenue for conducting a spot verification for assessment of rent payable by the Forest Department. The Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei then made an assessment for payment of rent to the respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 11,47,781/- which was for the period from January, 1981 upto 31.10.2006. As per the report of the Deputy Commissioner, the Forest Department was also said to have not obtained prior permission from the respondent No. 1 before occupying his land and therefore, the Forest Department occupied the land of the respondent No. 1 illegally and without any authority. 6. Despite the assessment, since no rental compensation was paid to the respondent No. 1, he served a notice to the appellants under Section 80 of the CPC which was acknowledged by the appellants. 6. Despite the assessment, since no rental compensation was paid to the respondent No. 1, he served a notice to the appellants under Section 80 of the CPC which was acknowledged by the appellants. Again not having received any response, the respondent No. 1 filed Civil Suit No. 8 of 2007 for a decree declaring him to have heritable and transferable right over the land covered by the Agriculture LSC concerned and for a direction to the appellants to vacate his land. He further sought for compensation at the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei and also the rental compensation as was already assessed along with 18% interest per annum be paid to the respondent No. 1. 7. The Civil Suit was contested by the appellants and also by the Revenue Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Lunglei who had arrayed as defendant Nos. 6 and 7 respectively. The appellants filed their written statement on 18.02.2009 taking preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable in the form and style it was filed, the suit was barred by limitation, waiver, latches and acquiescence. Further, the suit was also not properly valued. Besides this, the objection raised on merit was that the Forest Department issued a preliminary notification declaring that Ngengpui Ram will be notified as a Reserved Forest and therefore, whoever had any objection to the same should file their claims within a period of 120 days from the issuance of the notification. Despite this, since neither any objection nor claim was received, the final notification came to be published. Although the appellants acknowledged the fact that Pass No. 289 of 1978 was issued to the respondent No. 1 but since it was with a validity of only 5 years, the same already expired. It was further contended that since the land in question was validly declared as State Reserved Forest, no settlements can be made in favour of the respondent No. 1. 8. The Revenue Department also filed their written statement contending inter alia that the father of the respondent No. 1 was allotted Garden land at Ngengpui Ram in the year 1978 and accordingly, Periodic Patta No. 289 of 1978 with an area of 12 bighas was issued to him. 8. The Revenue Department also filed their written statement contending inter alia that the father of the respondent No. 1 was allotted Garden land at Ngengpui Ram in the year 1978 and accordingly, Periodic Patta No. 289 of 1978 with an area of 12 bighas was issued to him. Since the area mentioned in the Pass did not tally with the boundary description, the land was re- demarcated in the year 2004 and the area became 25.26 bighas. On production of Tax Clearance Certificate, the Assistant Settlement Officer-I renewed the validity of the Pass upto 1995 and thereafter, upto 2005. In the year 2002, the ownership of the Periodic Patta was transferred to the respondent No. 1. The Periodic Patta was subsequently converted into Agricultural LSC in the year 2006 and it was demarcated again more accurately and the area extended to 37.97 bighas. Besides this, the Revenue Department did not dispute the fact that the preliminary notification and the final notification for declaring “Ngengpui Reserved Forest” was issued in the years 1981 and 1982 respectively. 9. The Trial Court framed five issues. The same may be reproduced below:- “(i) Whether Periodic Patta No. 289 of 1978 allotted to Sh. A. Ngunhulha was for 5 years and if so, whether Sh. A. Nghunhulha had transferable and heritable right over the land under the said Periodic Patta given to him. (ii) Whether the land in question was declared as State Reserved Forest. (iii) Whether the conversion of Periodic Patta No. 289 of 1978 into LSC No. 210506/10/2 of 2006 was illegal. (iv) Whether the defendant had any valid Pass to construct six quarters and two numbers of Rest Houses and also construct Truckable road in the suit land. (v) Whether the defendant had encroached the plaintiffs land, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for damage and land rent.” 10. In support of their respective case, the respondent No. 1 as well as the appellants examined one witness each before the Trial Court. The Revenue Department did not produce any witness. 11. The Trial Court thereafter decided all the five issues in favour of the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, vide the impugned Judgment and Order held the appellant Nos. In support of their respective case, the respondent No. 1 as well as the appellants examined one witness each before the Trial Court. The Revenue Department did not produce any witness. 11. The Trial Court thereafter decided all the five issues in favour of the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, vide the impugned Judgment and Order held the appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to have illegally encroached upon the land of the respondent No. 1 and therefore, they were bound to pay compensation which was to be assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei within a time frame of two months from the date of the order. It was further observed that if the appellants were interested in acquiring the land of the respondent No. 1, they could do so as per the relevant provisions of law. 12. In terms of the direction of the Senior Civil Judge, the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei made an assessment of rental compensation payable to the respondent No. 1 and in doing so arrived at the amount of Rs. 53,40,025/-. The assessment was forwarded to the Senior Civil Judge on 14.05.2013. However, despite the assessment since the appellants failed to deposit the amount, the respondent No. 1 filed execution petition. During the pendency of the execution petition, the appellants took an objection that since a decree was not drawn pursuant to the passing of the impugned Judgment and Order, the same could not be executed. It was therefore for this reason that the Court of the Senior Civil Judge drew up the decree on 11.12.2014. Aggrieved with the Judgment and Order as well as the Decree drawn, the appellants are before this Court. 13. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the appellants submits that the cause of action arose in the year 1982 but the Civil Suit was filed only in the year 2007. Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and the same ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. He further submits that unless the Forest area concerned is not de- reserved under the provision of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act of 1980), the respondent No. 1 could not have been issued any Agricultural LSC. Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and the same ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone. He further submits that unless the Forest area concerned is not de- reserved under the provision of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act of 1980), the respondent No. 1 could not have been issued any Agricultural LSC. He also submits that the transfer of the Periodic Patta to the respondent No. 1 by his father in the year 2002 was illegal since a Periodic Patta under the State Revenue laws does not give the Patta holder a heritable and transferable right. 14. Mr. C. Zoramchhana further submits that the final notification that was issued on 11.03.1982 and published in the Mizoram Gazette on the same date has not been challenged by the respondent No. 1. Therefore, in absence of such challenge, the Civil Suit is not maintainable. He further refers to Section 2 of the Act of 1980 and submits that the State Government or any other authority cannot make any allotment of land within a reserved forest without the prior approval of the Central Government. Therefore, the allotment made to the respondent No. 1 in the year 2006 in the form of an Agricultural LSC and also the transfer of the land in his name in the year 2002 when it was a Periodic Patta is only illegal and bestows no right to the respondent No. 1. 15. The learned Addl. Advocate General also refers to the provision contained in Section 3 of the Mizo District (Agricultural land) Act, 1963 and submits that no allotment can be made to any person within the State Forest Reserved area as the same is specifically excluded from the coverage of the Act of 1963. 16. By referring to the grounds of appeal taken by the appellants, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that for the reasons mentioned therein, the impugned Judgment and Order and the Decree cannot be sustained. The respondent No. 1 having illegally converted the Periodic Patta into Agricultural LSC and that too after the expiry of the same, he could not have any claim for rental compensation or otherwise. Advocate General submits that for the reasons mentioned therein, the impugned Judgment and Order and the Decree cannot be sustained. The respondent No. 1 having illegally converted the Periodic Patta into Agricultural LSC and that too after the expiry of the same, he could not have any claim for rental compensation or otherwise. The respondent No. 1 also despite being fully aware of the preliminary notification and the final notification by which the “Ngengpui Ram” was declared as a Forest Reserved land failed to challenge the same and therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order and the Decree should be set aside and quashed. 17. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand submits that after the Civil Suit was disposed of by the Trial Court, the appellants failed to make any challenge to the same. It was only after an eviction suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 that the appellants woke up and filed a revision petition against the order passed in the execution case before this Court which was registered as CRP No. 10 of 2016. Therefore, the appellants are estopped from filing the present appeal at a belated stage and after the filing of the execution case by the respondent No. 1. The learned senior counsel by referring to the communication dated 21.11.2006 as well as the assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei District, Lunglei submits that as requested by the respondent No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner made an assessment of rental charge payable to him to the tune of Rs. 11,47,781/-. The assessment amount was never challenged by the appellants and therefore, they are again estopped from raising any objection at this belated stage. 18. The learned senior counsel further submits that Periodic Patta No. 289 of 1978 was issued to the father of the respondent No. 1 prior to issuance of the preliminary notification on 28.06.1981 and the final notification on 11.03.1982. Therefore, the appellants cannot dispossess the respondent No. 1 from his land save and except through due process of law. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Forest Department did not approach the Revenue Department for cancellation of the Periodic Patta or the Agricultural LSC of the respondent No. 1 at any point of time. Therefore, the appellants cannot dispossess the respondent No. 1 from his land save and except through due process of law. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Forest Department did not approach the Revenue Department for cancellation of the Periodic Patta or the Agricultural LSC of the respondent No. 1 at any point of time. He submits that all the land Passes or Land Settlements are issued by the competent authority i.e. the Revenue Department. Therefore, the appellants without having initiated any process with the Revenue Department for cancellation of the respondent No. 1s Periodic Patta or LSC, they are estopped from disputing the claim of the respondent No. 1. He submits that as per their own admission in the written statement filed before the Trial Court, the appellants have clearly accepted that the Periodic Patta of the respondent No. 1 was not cancelled. If the Periodic Patta was not cancelled, the respondent No. 1 has every right to get it renewed by paying the requisite late fee/fine imposed for the renewal. By referring to the written statement of the Revenue Department before the Trial Court, the learned senior counsel submits that the same only supports the case of the respondent No. 1. 19. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel by referring to the letter written by the father of the respondent No. 1 to the DFO, Lunglei and the Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei on 11.09.2006, 2.11.1981 and 11.10.1981 submits that the father of the respondent No. 1 invariably submitted various complaints for the occupation of his land by the personnels of the Forest Department. However, the Forest Department failed to take any steps to mitigate his grievance. The learned senior counsel by referring to Sections 14 and 15 of the Forest Act of 1955 submits that the very purpose of the said provision is to invite claims and objections before any particular forest area is declared a Forest Reserve. The appellants themselves have therefore failed to adhere to the provisions of the Act and as such, they are only liable to pay rental compensation to the respondent No. 1. He thus submits that the impugned Judgment and Order and the Decree drawn by the Trial Court requires no interference and the appeal should be dismissed with cost. 20. The appellants themselves have therefore failed to adhere to the provisions of the Act and as such, they are only liable to pay rental compensation to the respondent No. 1. He thus submits that the impugned Judgment and Order and the Decree drawn by the Trial Court requires no interference and the appeal should be dismissed with cost. 20. The learned senior counsel also submits that the Court should be slow in interfering with the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court in a first appeal, when the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court is based on evidence. In this connection, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Rathnavathi and Another Vs. Kavita Ganashamdas reported in (2015) 5 SCC 223 . 21. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the lower court record that was requisitioned. 22. The appellants Environment & Forest Department contested the suit by filing their written statement. In order to appreciate the stand of the Environment & Forest Department in their written statement, the objection on merit as reflected in paragraph 4 of the written statement may be reproduced below for ready perusal:- “4. That the contents of Para 1 of the plaint are denied. The father of the plaintiff was initially allotted a plot of land measuring an area 12 bighas at Mautlang Ram, Ngengpui Luikam vide Garden Pass No. 289 of 1978. On 18.6.1981, Govt. of Mizoram issued Preliminary Notification for constitution of Ngengpui Reserve Forest inviting claim of right and objection inside the proposed Reserve Forest to be submitted within 120 days from the date of Preliminary Notification. No claim and complain was received from any person including the plaintiff and on 11.3.1982, Govt of Mizoram issued Final Notification for constitution of Ngengpui Reserve Forest, Revenue Department issued show cause notice to the plaintiff and other 11 pass holders for cancellation of their Passes. The Passes of 11 persons except the plaintiffs were cancelled for the reason best known to the issuing authority in spite of knowing the fact that Garden Pass No. 289 of 1978 was within Ngengpui Reserve Forest and the Pass itself was also expired. The expired Garden Pass was renewed in 2001 and later; it was transferred to the present plaintiff extending the area to become 20 bighas. The expired Garden Pass was renewed in 2001 and later; it was transferred to the present plaintiff extending the area to become 20 bighas. On 11.6.2004, the Garden Pass of the plaintiff re-demarcated increasing the area 25.26 bighas. It was converted into LSC in 2006 further increasing the area to 38.10 bighas. It is denied that the plaintiffs father planted fruit bearing trees in the suit land. He got periodic patta only in 1978, but he constructed Assam type building long before 1978 which was damaged in 1945. Hence, the plaintiffs case is baseless and unreliable. The act of renewal, extension and conversion into LSC were illegal and were made without informing the answering defendant either. It is submitted that the answering defendant got right and title as for State Forest Reserve over the suit land w.e.f. 11.3.1982. Since the plaintiffs father has no transferable or heritable right and since the area in Forest Reserve, the transfer of the periodic patta in the name of the plaintiff was void.” 23. The Environment & Forest Department in order to defend their case examined one Sh. H.K. Vanlalsiama, Head Assistant of the Forest Department as their sole witness. In order to appreciate the deposition of the said witness in his examination-in-chief, the same may be reproduced below for ready perusal:- “I, Shri H.K. Vanlalsiam s/o Dr. HK. Thanglura (L) r/o Chanmari, Lunglei do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows:- 1. That I am presently holding the post of Head Assistant, I have studied this suit from the records and other sources that I am acquainted with the facts of this suit. 2. That the father of the plaintiff was initially allotted a plot of land measuring an area 12 bighas at Mautlang Ram, Ngengpui Luikam vide Garden Pass No. 289 of 1978. On 18.6.1981, Govt of Mizoram issued Preliminary Notification for constitution of Ngengpui Reserve Forest inviting claim of right and objection inside the proposed Reserve Forest to be submitted within 120 days from the date of Preliminary Notification. No claim and complain was received from any person including the plaintiff and on 11.3.1982, Govt of Mizoram issued Final Notification for constitution of Ngengpui Reserve Forest. Revenue Department issued show cause notice to the plaintiff and other 11 pass holders for cancellation of their Passes. No claim and complain was received from any person including the plaintiff and on 11.3.1982, Govt of Mizoram issued Final Notification for constitution of Ngengpui Reserve Forest. Revenue Department issued show cause notice to the plaintiff and other 11 pass holders for cancellation of their Passes. The Passes of 11 persons except the plaintiffs were cancelled for the reason best known to the issuing authority in spite of knowing the fact that Garden Pass No. 289 of 1978 was within Ngengpui Reserve Forest and the Pass itself was also expired. The expired Garden Pass was renewed in 2001 and later; it was transferred to the present plaintiff extending the area to become 20 bighas. On 11.6.2004, the Garden Pass of the plaintiff was re-demarcated and its area was increased again to 25.26 bighas. It was converted into LSC in 2006 and it was further increased the area to 38.10 bighas. There was no fruit bearing trees in the suit land at the time it was declared reserve forest. The act of renewal, extension and conversion into LSC were illegal and were made without informing the answering defendant either. The defendant gets right and title as for State Forest Reserve over the suit land w.e.f. 11.3.1982. Since the plaintiffs father has no transferable or heritable right and since the area in question was validly declared as State Forest Reserve, the transfer of the periodic patta in the name of the plaintiff was void. 3. That the defendant, by virtue of acquiring right over the suit land as Reserve Forest vide Notification, started maintenance of the area as reserve forest and started construction of Best Quarter during 1982-83. That was well known by the plaintiff and other surrounding settlers. The defendant did not receive a complaint or representation from the plaintiff. 4. That Periodic Patta No. 289/78 was issued only for 5 years, i.e. up to 1983. It was not renewed in time; and, the renewal done after the prescribed period was not acceptable because the area had already become State Reserve Forest and had already been maintained as such. 5. That the defendant did not make any promise to the plaintiff in lieu of the suit land. 6. That when Preliminary Notification (supra) was issued, the plaintiff did not make any claim to the issuing authority. 5. That the defendant did not make any promise to the plaintiff in lieu of the suit land. 6. That when Preliminary Notification (supra) was issued, the plaintiff did not make any claim to the issuing authority. It was the plaintiff who was at fault in failing to make claims, if he had any, to the appropriate authority. In such a situation, the answering defendant was not bound to search for the plaintiff in particular to obtain his prior permission. Neither the answering defendant was bound to obtain land donation certificate from the plaintiff. Issuing Preliminary Notification calling upon to submit claims was sufficient notification to the defendant. There was enough time between Preliminary Notification and Final Notification for submitting claims and objections. 7. That issue of Preliminary Notification overtly to be known by the public at large calling upon to submit claims was the right, ways and means that the defendant ought to do and no other. Even before issue of Final Notification, the plaintiff knew full well the action taken by the defendant but he did not take any action though he claimed to be taken. He did not submit his claim to the defendant. It is apparently clear that he knew the process and development of making the area to be reserve forest. His failure to make claim was his own fault, willful inaction at his own peril. The defendant did not act illegally nor did they encroach upon the plaintiffs land.” 24. From the above abstracts i.e. the written statement as well as the deposition of the defence witness, what can be noticed is that the Pass of the respondent No. 1 i.e. Garden Pass No. 289/1978 was not cancelled by the Revenue authority. This fact was known to the Environment & Forest Department as well. Although the appellant claimed that a preliminary notification was issued on 28.06.1981 whereafter, a final notification was again issued on 11.03.1982 declaring Ngengpui forest as a Reserved Forest. But however, the appellants did not seek for the cancellation of the Garden Pass of the respondent No. 1 by approaching the Revenue Department of the State. The respondent No. 1, on the other hand, got the Periodic Patta transferred into his name from his father on 23.01.2002 and thereafter, converted the same into Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate in the year 2006. The respondent No. 1, on the other hand, got the Periodic Patta transferred into his name from his father on 23.01.2002 and thereafter, converted the same into Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate in the year 2006. Had the appellants indeed been opposed to the issuance of the Garden Pass to the respondent No. 1 and the subsequent conversion of the Pass into Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate, they ought to have moved the Revenue Department for cancellation. However, the same was not done. Further, in the Civil Suit No. 8/2007, which was filed by the respondent No. 1, the appellants besides contesting the suit by filing their written statement did not file any cross suit against the respondent No. 1. Therefore, under the circumstances, the question that would arise is as to whether they can dispute the Pass issued to the respondent No. 1 in a suit, which has not been filed by them. The respondent No. 1 examined himself as his own witness during the suit proceeding. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that his father Mr. A. Ngunhulha was allotted a plot of land measuring an area of 25.26 bighas at Khawmawi below the Ngengpui stream by the Revenue Department vide Periodic Patta No. 286/1978. The validity of the Periodic Patta was renewed from time to time and his father was looking after the plot of land by planting different kinds of fruit bearing trees and plants. The Periodic Patta was transferred into his name on 23.01.2002. Thereafter, in the year 2006, he got the same converted into an Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate. He further deposed that in the year 1981 and also in the year 1982, when the Forest personnel were trying to construct Beat quarters within his land, he requested the Forest Department not to include his land within the Forest Reserved area. However, in the year 1982, despite knowing fully well that the respondent No. 1 had a valid Pass, his land was included within the Forest Reserved area. But the fact remains that the Pass of the respondent No. 1 was not cancelled and in fact, the same was converted into Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate in the year 2006. 25. Coming to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, there is no argument to the provision that there is restriction on the de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. 25. Coming to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, there is no argument to the provision that there is restriction on the de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. However, in the present case, there is no question of de-reserving the forest since the respondent No. 1 was having a valid Pass, either in the form of Periodic Patta or Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate. 26. It may be stated herein that as per Section 4 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956, no person shall acquire by length of possession or otherwise any right over land disposed of, allotted or occupied before the commencement of this Act unless such land had been recorded and registered either in the Deputy Commissioners Office or the District Councils Office. 27. As may be seen, the respondent No. 1 was a holder of the Periodic Patta which subsequently was converted into Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate. Therefore, unless the same is cancelled in accordance with law, the same cannot be taken away from him on the strength of notification made in the year 1982 declaring Ngengpui Ram as a Forest Reserved land. 28. In the case of State of Mizoram and Others Vs. C. Lalbiakthanga, reported in (2012) 1 GLR 83, a coordinate Bench of this Court held that the respondent therein was holding a Periodic Patta since 1976 continuously till the land was acquired. Therefore, the Patta holder will only be entitled to compensation for the land. In deciding the case in the above manner, Section 2 (8) of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956 which defines a settlement holder to be any person other than a pass holder, who has entered into an agreement with the Administrator to pay land revenue and is deemed to have acquired status of settlement holder under Section 7 of the Act was taken into consideration. 29. In the case of Rathnavathi and Another (Supra), the Apex Court held that the High Court being the last Court of appeal on facts/law while hearing first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC was well within its power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, independent to that of the trial courts decision. 29. In the case of Rathnavathi and Another (Supra), the Apex Court held that the High Court being the last Court of appeal on facts/law while hearing first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC was well within its power to appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, independent to that of the trial courts decision. It was further observed that one cannot dispute the legal proposition that the grant/refusal of specific performance is a discretionary relief, and, therefore, once it is granted by the appellate court on appreciation of evidence, keeping in view the legal principle applicable for the grant then further appellate court should be slow to interfere in such finding, unless the finding is found to be either against the settled principle of law, or is arbitrary or perverse. 30. In the result, upon considering the case in its entirety and after appreciating the evidence led by the rival parties, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is without any merit and therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed. 31. Registry to send back the LCR.