JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 2. This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the Union of India against the Judgment & Decree dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl in Title Suit N. 7/1995, by which the appellants have been directed to pay rental charges for occupation of the land of the respondent No. 1 covered by Land Settlement Certificate i.e., LSC No. KLB 49/1985, by the Border Roads Task Force (BRTF). The Trial Court also decreed that the land document issued to the appellants by the Mizo District Council in respect of the occupied land i.e., Temporary Permit No. 4/1970, was not lawful and as such, it was declared null and void. It may be pointed out at the outset that the land occupied by the appellants and for which they were directed to pay rent is covered by two sets of land documents. The respondent No. 1 claims title to the land on the basis of LSC Nos. KLB 49/1985, while the appellants claim their right to occupy the land on the basis of Temporary Pass/Permit No. 4/1970. 3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is that the plaintiff purchased a plot of land in the year 1963 measuring an area of about 1(one) Bigha situated at Kolasib Hmar veng, Kolasib from one Shri R.Thansanga (L) alongwith 30 Orange trees, 5 Jackfruit trees, 7 Mango trees, 10 Guava trees, some bamboo and Zawngtah trees standing on the land. Eventhough the Plaintiff purchased the said plot of land in the year 1963, she did not get the Pass changed in her name till the year 1985. In the year 1985, the Plaintiff applied to the Defendant no.9 for issuance of Settlement Certificate over the said plot of land she had purchased from Shri R.Thansanga (L). After due verification and demarcation, the Plaintiff was issued a Settlement Certificate bearing No.KLB 49 of 1985 for the said land. Hence the Plaintiff became the owner of the said land. 4. In the month of August 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied respondent No. 1''s land mentioned above and during their occupation, the BRTF destroyed all the trees. After due verification and demarcation, the Plaintiff was issued a Settlement Certificate bearing No.KLB 49 of 1985 for the said land. Hence the Plaintiff became the owner of the said land. 4. In the month of August 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied respondent No. 1''s land mentioned above and during their occupation, the BRTF destroyed all the trees. The BRTF continued the occupation of the land without paying any rent or compensation. 5. Being aggrieved by the damage caused to the land and due to non- payment of rent for occupation of the land by the BRTF, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 7/1995. The prayer of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in Title Suit No. 7/1995 was for a decree declaring that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 49/1985. The other prayers were for payment of rent @ Rs. 372.50 per month from August 1966 till vacant possession of the land was given to the respondent No. 1 and for damages caused to the land. The rate of rent for the land had been worked out by the office of the Deputy Commissioner. 6. The appellants herein, who were the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in Title Suit No. 7/1995, filed a written statement and took the stand that they were occupying the land after obtaining Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 issued by the Mizo District Council. Further, the appellants occupied the land in 1966 when the land was under the Mizo District of Assam. As such, if any payment of rent was to be made, the same had to be made by the State of Assam. The appellants further took the stand that the LSC No. KLB 49/1985 was obtained fraudulently by deceiving the Authority concerned and as such, the same was void ab-initio. The appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. The respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who are the State of Mizoram herein, were the defendant Nos. 5 to 9 in the title suit. They also prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed the following issues:- wxyz "1) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form and style ? zyxw wxyz 2) Whether the land documents of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit land are valid documents ? zyxw wxyz 3) Whether the Defendants no. They also prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed the following issues:- wxyz "1) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form and style ? zyxw wxyz 2) Whether the land documents of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit land are valid documents ? zyxw wxyz 3) Whether the Defendants no. 1-6 (UOI) is occupying the suit land. If so legally or illegally? zyxw wxyz 4) Whether the allotment of the suit land to the Defendants no.1-6 (UOI) by the State Government is valid or not? zyxw wxyz 5) Whether any assessment of compensation/rents in respect of the occupation of the suit land by the Defendants no.1- 6(UOI) has been made? If so, to what extent?" zyxw 9. After evidences were adduced, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the suit was maintainable and that the BRTF had occupied the suit land. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that the land covered by LSC No. KLB 49/1985 had been bought by the respondent No. 1 from R. Thansanga (L) in the year 1963. Pass No. 10/1972 was thereafter issued in respect of the said land and thereafter, LSC No. KLB 49/1985 was issued. The learned Trial Court thus held that LSC No. KLB 49/1985 was a valid land document. The learned Trial Court also held that as the BRTF had occupied the land of the respondent No. 1 only from August 1966, without the prior permission of the respondent No. 1, the occupation of the land by the BRTF was illegal. The learned Trial Court also held that the Revenue Department had no power or basis for issuing Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 to the BRTF. As such, the permit could not be said to be a valid permit as it had no force of law. The learned Trial Court thus held that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was an invalid permit. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that a joint verification had been conducted for assessing the rent and compensation payable to the respondent No. 1 for occupation of her land by the BRTF. Accordingly, as per the assessment report, the rate of rent was assessed at Rs. 372.50 per month as per assessment report/letter No.F.14011/2/85 (A)/112 dated Aizawl the 20th November 1985. Accordingly, as per the assessment report, the rate of rent was assessed at Rs. 372.50 per month as per assessment report/letter No.F.14011/2/85 (A)/112 dated Aizawl the 20th November 1985. The learned Trial Court also held that besides Permit No. 4/1970 not being a valid permit, the permit did not identify the exact location to be occupied by the BRTF. The learned Trial Court thus held that as the Permit No. 4/1970, did not have any force of law, the appellants were in unauthorized occupation of the land of the respondent No. 1. 10. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit as follows:- wxyz "a) It is hereby declared that the Department Pass No.4of 1970 issued to the BRTF is null and void. zyxw wxyz b) It is declared that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 49 of 1985 and she has right and title over the land. zyxw wxyz c) The Defendants no.1-6 (BRTF) are hereby directed to pay land rental charges for illegal occupation of the land covered by LSC No.49 of 1985 belonging to the Plaintiff at the rate of Rs.372.50p (Rupees three hundred seventy two and fifty paise) only with interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. May 1967 till full realisation of the total amount and further sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation for damaged crops to the Plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of this decree. zyxw wxyz d) The Defendants no. 1-6 (BRTF) are hereby directed to vacate the suit land and give vacant possession to the Plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of this order." zyxw 11. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 29.08.2012, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 7/1995, the appellants i.e., the Union of India have filed the present Regular First Appeal. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has, in the plaint, categorically stated that the cause of action for payment of rent and damages arose in August, 1966, the suit was barred by limitation, since it was filed only in the year 1995. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Trial Court has not discussed the genuineness of the LSC No. KLB 49/1985. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Trial Court has not discussed the genuineness of the LSC No. KLB 49/1985. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the land occupied by the appellants was covered by the Permit No. 4/1970, which was issued by the Executive Committee of Mizo District Council. The appellants vacated the land in May, 2010. As the appellants were in occupation of the said land on the basis of a Permit issued by the Competent Authority, there was no reason for the appellants to pay rent to the respondent No. 1 as they were bonafide allottees of the land. 15. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff submits that the land covered by LSC No. KLB 49/1985 was initially bought from one Mr. R. Thansanga (L) in the year 1963. The same was subsequently converted into Permit No. 10/1972. Though the respondent No. 1 had bought a portion of the land of Sh. R. Thansanga (L), Permit No. 10/1972 was issued covering the entire land in the name of Sh. R. Thansanga (L). However, a portion of the said land which was bought by the respondent No. 1 was thereafter converted into LSC No. KLB 49/1985. She also submits that the present case is covered by the Judgment & Order dated 17.09.2013 passed by this Court in RSA No. 3/2011 "Union of India Vs. Sh. Lalhlira & 5 Ors", inasmuch as, the appeal that was filed by the appellants herein in RSA No. 3/2011 had been dismissed on similar set of facts. In RSA No. 3/2011, the issue was with regard to payment of rent for occupation of the land of Lalhlira by the BRTF, which Lalhlira had bought from R. Thansanga (L) also. The stand taken by the appellants herein in RSA No. 3/2011 was also to the effect that they were not required to pay any rent to the land owner Lalhlira, as they had been issued Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 by the Competent Authority over the said land. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff further submits that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 issued to the appellants herein had been declared to be illegal and void ab-initio by the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in RFA No. 2/2002 "Sh. Lalhlira Vs. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff further submits that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 issued to the appellants herein had been declared to be illegal and void ab-initio by the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in RFA No. 2/2002 "Sh. Lalhlira Vs. Chief Engineer, Project Pushpak and 10 Ors." The challenge to the Judgment & Order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in RFA No. 2/2002 in this Court vide RSA No. 3/2011 was dismissed. She thus submits that the Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 being declared unlawful and void, the appellants were directed to pay rent in RSA No. 3/2011. She thus submits that the present case being a covered case, the appeal should be dismissed. 17. Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submits that she does not have any submissions to make in the matter, as the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree. 18. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 19. The first question that has to be gone into is whether the learned Trial Court''s finding that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970, which was issued to the BRTF was null and void. The finding of the learned Trial Court was that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was null and void, as the land which it covered, already belonged to the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff. This Court does not find any error in the findings of the learned Trial Court on this aspect. Also in another analogous appeal i.e., RFA No. 47/2012 (Union of India & 3 Ors. Vs. Smt. Lalmuankimi & 5 Ors.), the facts in RFA No. 47/2012 show that R. Thansanga (L) had been given a plot of land by the Chief Vankhuma in 1942. Portions of the said land had been sold by R. Thansanga (L) to the present respondent No. 1, J. Manliana and Lalhlira. Permit No. 10/1972 was issued by the District Council over the land given to R. Thansanga (L) by Chief Vankhuma. The same was thereafter converted into different Land Settlement Certificates by the buyers over the portions of land they bought. This Court also does not find any illegality in the issuance of the LSC, which has been done under Section 11 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956. 20. The same was thereafter converted into different Land Settlement Certificates by the buyers over the portions of land they bought. This Court also does not find any illegality in the issuance of the LSC, which has been done under Section 11 of the Mizo District (Land and Revenue) Act, 1956. 20. Besides the above, this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2013 passed in RSA No. 3/2011, "The Union of India Vs. Sh. Lalhlira and 5 Others" has held that the issuance of Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was not lawful. Paragraph 6 of the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2013 passed by this Court in RSA No. 3/2011 is reproduced below:- wxyz "6. As discussed by the learned appellate court, there is evidence, on record, to show that the private respondent was occupying the land covered by LSC No. KLB 46 of 1985 and LSC No. KLB 48 of 1985. LSC No. KLB 48 of 1985 was issued when the periodic patta No. 10 of 1972 was converted into LSCs. The LSCs were issued under the provisions of the Mizoram Land Laws. From record, it is found that the House Pass No. 2 of 1966 was also issued in favour of the private respondent, under the Mizoram Land Laws. Therefore, admittedly, the land covered by the LSC No. KLB 46 of 1985 was initially allotted to the private respondent vide House Pass No. 2 of 1966. There is no dispute that the said land allotted in favour of, and possessed by, the private respondent has been occupied by the BRTF since the month of August, 1966 and the District Council issued permit No. 4 of 1970 in favour of the BRTF, authorizing them to occupy the said land. The said permit No. 4 of 1970 was issued much after the House Pass No. 2 of 1966 (followed by LSC No. KLB 46 of 1985) was issued in favour of the private respondent. There is nothing, on record, to show that the said permit No. 4 of 1970 was issued after cancelling the House Pass No. 2 of 1966, which was already issued in favour of the private respondent. Therefore, the issuance of permit No. 4 of 1970, during existence of the House Pass no. There is nothing, on record, to show that the said permit No. 4 of 1970 was issued after cancelling the House Pass No. 2 of 1966, which was already issued in favour of the private respondent. Therefore, the issuance of permit No. 4 of 1970, during existence of the House Pass no. 2 of 1966 in the name of the private respondent, was not lawful inasmuch as the right to enjoy property, which was given by House Pass No. 2 of 1966, was taken away without any lawfully process. Hence, the said permit issued in favour of the Union can''t be held to be a lawful one. That apart, the defendants/respondents have contended that the land was given to the BRTF by Government vide Temporary Permit No. 4/1970. The first appellate Court referring to the Land Laws has held that the Government did not have authority to issue Land Permit. I find force in the said findings. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the private respondent''s land, which was covered by a valid pass, has been, unlawfully occupied by the BRTF, thereby depriving the private respondent from enjoying the benefit, arising out of the suit land. As the private respondent has been deprived from enjoyment of his lawful property, without due process of law, he is entitled to get compensation in terms of rent. The learned appellate court has discussed the evidence, on record, and rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent authority is liable to pay rent for the occupation of the private respondent''s land aforesaid. The said findings are based on evidence on record, and as such, the same is not perverse." zyxw wxyz The above findings and decision of this Court in RSA No. 3/2011 that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was unlawful has not been challenged by the appellants till date and has accordingly attained finality. As on date Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 is null and void. In the present case also, the appellants are denying the liability to pay rent to the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the land covered by LSC No. KLB 49/1985 is also covered by Temporary Permit No. 4/1970, which has been allotted to the appellants by the Competent Authority. However, as reflected above, this Court in RSA No. 3/2011 has declared Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 to be null and void. However, as reflected above, this Court in RSA No. 3/2011 has declared Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 to be null and void. Though the appellants have tried to make a challenge to the validity of the LSC No. KLB 49/1985, they have not made any counter claim for declaring the same to be illegal and void in their written statement filed in Title Suit No. 6/1989 or in the present appeal. zyxw 21. In RSA No. 3/2011, which was disposed off vide Judgment & Order dated 17.09.2013, this Court upheld the judgment of the First Appellate Court, wherein the appellants were directed to pay rent for the period of occupation of lands of the private person, from a period of 3 years prior to filing of the suit till the land was vacated, with interest @ 6% per annum. Also, as the landholder in RSA No. 3/2011 had bought his land from the same R. Thansanga (L) also, and out of which different Land Settlement Certificates had been issued, this Court finds that the facts in RSA No. 3/2011 are somewhat similar to this case. Accordingly, the Judgment & Order dated 17.09.2013 passed in RSA No. 3/2011, is also applicable to the facts of this case. 22. In view of the above reasons, the appellants herein have to be held to be in illegal forceful possession of the lands of the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff. As the Government of Mizoram through the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl District, has fixed rent payable to the respondent No. 1 by the BRTF, at the rate of Rs. 372.50 per month for LSC No. KLB 49/1985, the appellants would have to pay the said rent amount to the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff. 23. With regard to whether Title Suit No. 7/1995 was barred by limitation, the question of the Limitation Act being applicable to the State of Mizoram has been laid to rest by the Apex Court. In the case of J. Thansiama Vs. State of Mizoram, (2015) 5 GauLT 7 , the Apex Court has held that the Limitation Act is applicable to the State of Mizoram. 24. In view of the above, Title Suit No. 7/1995 is barred by limitation in so far as the prayer for payment of rent is made w.e.f. August 1966. In the case of J. Thansiama Vs. State of Mizoram, (2015) 5 GauLT 7 , the Apex Court has held that the Limitation Act is applicable to the State of Mizoram. 24. In view of the above, Title Suit No. 7/1995 is barred by limitation in so far as the prayer for payment of rent is made w.e.f. August 1966. However, as the matter pertains to payment of monthly rent for occupation of land, the period of limitation for filing a money suit for payment of rent would be 3 years from the date arrears become due. Thus, the question that has to be gone into is whether the learned Trial Court correctly decreed payment of rent from May, 1967. Though the respondent No. 1 has stated in her written statement that the cause of action arose in the year 1966, the respondent No. 1 can only make a claim for rent from a period of 3 years immediately preceding the civil suit. In this respect, the Judgment of the Apex Court in Kamala Bakshi -vs- Khairati Lal, (2000) 3 SCC 681 would be helpful in deciding the issue. 25. In the case of Kamala Bakshi -vs- Khairati Lal, (2000) 3 SCC 681 , the appellant issued a demand notice dated 19.08.1992 to the respondent in respect of arrears of rent from 28.3.1960 to 28.07.1992. The tenant respondent paid the rent due for the 3 (three) years preceding 1.09.1992 and denied the liability to pay any arrears for the earlier period. The appellant then filed a petition before the Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition holding that as the respondents had paid arrears of rent for the period of 3 (three) years immediately preceding the demand notice and as the arrears of rent for the rest of the period were not legally recoverable, there was no cause of action for the appellant to file the petition. The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court wherein it was dismissed. The appellant then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. The Apex Court while dismissing the appellants appeal held that for recovery of arrears of rent, Article 52 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of 3 (three) years from the date the arrears become due. wxyz In the present case the monthly rent became due at the end of each month. The Apex Court while dismissing the appellants appeal held that for recovery of arrears of rent, Article 52 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of 3 (three) years from the date the arrears become due. wxyz In the present case the monthly rent became due at the end of each month. As Title Suit No. 7/1995 was filed in July, 1995, the claim of the respondent No. 1 for recovery of arrears of rent would be legally recoverable only from a period of 3 years prior to filing of the Title Suit No. 7/1995, i.e. July, 1992. Thus, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court could not have passed a decree for payment of rent from May 1967, as the same was barred by limitation. However, a claim for recovery of rent would not be barred by limitation if it is from a period of 3 years prior to filing of the suit. As it has been submitted at the Bar that the appellants (BRTF) vacated the suit lands in May, 2010, rent for the same would have to be paid at the rate prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner from July, 1992 till April, 2010. It has also been submitted at the Bar that the Judgment & Order dated 17.09.2013 passed by this Court in RSA No. 3/2011 has been complied with and rent money paid to the landowner Lalhlira by the appellants. zyxw 26. With regard to the learned Trial Court awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for damage to crops, this Court is of the view that the same could not have been awarded, as there is no evidence or finding as to the amount of damage caused to the crops on the land of the respondent No. 1 by the BRTF. 27. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds no illegality with the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 7/1995 is so far as it has declared that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 as null and void and that the respondent No. 1 was the legal owner of land covered by LSC Nos. KLB 43/1985. This Court also does not find any ground to interfere with the direction made by the learned Trial Court to pay rental charges @ Rs. KLB 43/1985. This Court also does not find any ground to interfere with the direction made by the learned Trial Court to pay rental charges @ Rs. 372.50/- per month in respect of land covered by KLB 49/1985. This Court also does not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded and payable by the appellants on the rental charges @ 6% per annum. However, it is made clear that the rental charges payable on the above land would have to be paid only from July, 1992 till April, 2010 and that interest would be payable on the rental charges payable @ 6% per annum. The decree for payment of Rs. 10,000/- made by the learned Trial Court as compensation for damaged crops being unsustainable is set aside. The appellants shall pay the rental charges plus interest to the respondent No. 1 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. With the above modifications, this appeal is accordingly disposed of. wxyz Decree be prepared accordingly. zyxw wxyz Returned the LCR. zyxw