JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. H.Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and also heard Mr. Johny L.Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This is a Regular First Appeal directed against the judgment & order dated 09.12.2015 of Senior Civil Judge, Saiha District in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2015. 3. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are as follows ; In the year 2009, an approach road between Saiha and Thingsen village was constructed under the scheme of MGNREGS across the land of respondent No.1 without first acquiring the same under the provision of relevant laws. The respondent No.1 did not make any claim for compensation for his land. However, in 2014 in the month of August, a landslide occurred in the land of the respondent No.1 purportedly due to the construction of the road, therefore, the respondent No.1 filed a civil suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saiha praying thereby for a direction to be issued to the Deputy Commissioner of the District to assess the damage cause to his land and thereafter, recommend for appropriate compensation for the same. The same was registered as Civil Suit No.06 of 2015. After the notices were issued, the present appellants filed their written statement. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties framed 6(six) issues and the issues were; “(i) whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style or not (ii) whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or not (iii) whether the plaintiff as a locus standi/cause of action in respect of LSC/G/THS/15/50 of 9.12.2005 to file the instant suit against the defendants or not. (iv) whether there was damaged of the plaintiff’s land and crops caused by the defendant No. 7 & 8 under NGREGS or not. (v) whether the plaintiff’s had really developed the suit land and by cultivating and harvesting several crops from the suit land or not. If so, to what extend and how many crops and what type of crops (vi) whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the relief claim or not. If so, what extend and from whom” 4. The present respondent No.1 in the present appeal produced an examine 3(three) witnesses and the appellants (the respondent in that suit) produced an examine 4(four) witnesses. If so, to what extend and how many crops and what type of crops (vi) whether the plaintiffs is entitled to the relief claim or not. If so, what extend and from whom” 4. The present respondent No.1 in the present appeal produced an examine 3(three) witnesses and the appellants (the respondent in that suit) produced an examine 4(four) witnesses. After considering the evidence in the record and also after hearing the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the suit and passed the following order; “28. In the anvil of the above findings and judgments, the defendants no. 3 as District Collector of Saiha is directed to make assessment of the quantum of compensation to be paid to the plaintiff in accordance with the in force Land Acquisition Act and, on the basis on the damage area delineated by the Local Commissioner in the Case at hand in respect of construction of village road in between Saiha and Thingsen during December, 2009 by the defendants 7 and 8 and under the funding and Supervision/authority of the defendants 3-5 pertaining to only damage landed property (not includes crops) under LSC/G/Ths/15 of 9.12.2005 under the very scheme of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Scheme. The process of the same till submission of the same to the competent authority in the government shall be completed within one month to be reckoned from the date of this order and shall also pass an award accordingly. All procedures on the process like solatium etc. will be guided by the rigour provisions of the in force Land Acquisition Act with effect from December, 2009. 29. Defendants 1-5 being jointly liable are also directed to realize the payment/disbursement of compensation amount to the plaintiff within three months from the date of award to be passed by the defendant no.3 as District Collector of Saiha. 30. Defendants no.4 is further directed to pay costs of the Suit viz. Lawyers fee of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand rupees), Court fees of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand rupees) and other expenses (conveyance, stationery etc.) @ Rs.5,000/- (five thousand rupees) with an interest rate @ 6 % per annum till full realization of the same to the plaintiff within a period of sixty days to be calculated from today. 31. Lawyers fee of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand rupees), Court fees of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand rupees) and other expenses (conveyance, stationery etc.) @ Rs.5,000/- (five thousand rupees) with an interest rate @ 6 % per annum till full realization of the same to the plaintiff within a period of sixty days to be calculated from today. 31. It will be in-completed without giving high appreciation to Senior Revenue Officer of MADC on his enthusiastic, timely and accurate local commission’s task to discern the truth in the journey of the proceedings. 32. Decree shall be drawn accordingly and with this, Case shall stand disposed of accordingly.” 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment & order, the respondents has come before this Court by filing the present appeal. The grounds raised in the appeal are discussed as follows; (i) That the findings and conclusions of the learned Civil Judge in the Issues No. 2 & 3 are regarding limitation and the same are erroneous because when the suit was filed it was beyond the time limit prescribed under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The provision of Article 72 read as follows; “For compensation for doing or omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for time in the territories to which this Act extends, period of limitation is one year and time for which period taken to run is when the act for omission takes place.” The learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the road was constructed in the year 2009 however, the suit was filed only in 2015. Therefore, by then the period of one year prescribed in the Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had already lapsed. As such, the suit was clearly barred by limitation and the Civil Judge had committed error in law in having admitted the suit. Mr. Johny L.Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the appropriate provisions of law applicable in this case are provided in sections 22 & 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The contents of the two sections are given herein below; “22. Continuing breaches and torts.- In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues. The contents of the two sections are given herein below; “22. Continuing breaches and torts.- In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues. 23. Suits for compensation for acts not actionable without special damage.- In the case of a suit for compensation for an act which does not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury actually results therefrom, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the injury results.” In continuation of his submission, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.1 did not claim compensation for his land taken for construction of the road but for the subsequent damage caused to his land due to the construction of the road because that damage occurred only in the month of August, 2014. Therefore, when the suit was filed in 2015, it was clearly within the time limit prescribed in the two sections of Limitation Act stated above. Considering the facts and circumstances stated by the respondent No.1 under which the claim was made, it appears that the provisions of section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be squarely applicable. Because, the respondent No1/claimant did not make any claim for the land taken for construction of the road but for the damage caused to his land due to the construction of the road over his land. The word “result therefrom” of section 23 makes amply clear that the cause of action would arise only when some specific injury results from an act. In this case, the construction of the road was taken up in 2009 and the damage for which compensation is claimed occurred in August, 2014. Mrs. H.Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate submitted that it was act of god which caused damage to the land of the respondent and it was not caused by the intentional act of the respondents. However, from the facts and circumstances and the evidence in the record, it appears that the said landslide which gave rise to the filing of the suit had occurred due to the construction of the road. However, from the facts and circumstances and the evidence in the record, it appears that the said landslide which gave rise to the filing of the suit had occurred due to the construction of the road. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the suit was filed within time and the learned Civil Judge was right in having admitted the same. (ii) The 2nd issue it is submitted by the learned counsel of the appellant that the learned Civil Judge had appointed a Commissioner who happens to be Defendant No.6 in the suit to conduct local inspection on the damage caused and based on his findings the judgment and order impugned herein was passed. Therefore, it is in clear violation of the settled principle of law which says that a person cannot be a judge in his own cause.. Mr. Johny L.Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that no specific pleading has been made on that matter or issue in the appeal, therefore, that issue cannot be dealt with at this stage. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels and I have also perused the record. From the record, it is confirmed that the person who was appointed as Commissioner to conduct the local inquiry of the land damaged is none other than the Defendant No.6. Therefore, as submitted by the learned Govt. Advocate the learned Senior Civil Judge has committed an error in law while appointing the Commissioner. Further on careful perusal of the judgment & order, it is clear that the same was passed on the basis of the report submitted by the Commissioner. Under such facts and circumstances and in view of the settled principle of law, this Court cannot remain a silent spectator to the error of law committed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Therefore, the judgment & order which is based on the report of the local Commissioner i.e. the Defendant No.6 in the suit cannot be sustained or upheld in law. In that view of the matter, the judgment & order is quashed and set aside. The learned Civil Judge is directed to try the suit denovo by appointing a Commissioner as per law and complete the trial within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In that view of the matter, the judgment & order is quashed and set aside. The learned Civil Judge is directed to try the suit denovo by appointing a Commissioner as per law and complete the trial within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless but, for the sake of clarity, the learned trial court need not go into the question of limitation as the same has been already discussed and settled in this judgment. RFA is disposed.