Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 511 (GAU)

Union Of India v. V. l. Muana

2020-05-20

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2020
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 21.08.2012, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-2, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 6/1991, 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 47/1985, 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 Departmental Pass/ 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 lands 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 47/1985, 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 a plot of land measuring an area of about 0.29 Bigha, located at Kolasib Hmar veng, Kolasib, was allotted to him by the Mizo District Council vide Pass No. 35 of 1964. The Plaintiff had planted various fruit bearing trees and other plants on the said land. In the year 1985, he applied to the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Government of Mizoram to convert the said Pass into Land Settlement Certificate (in short LSC) in place of the Pass No. 35 of 1964. After due verification and demarcation, he was issued with LSC No. KLB 47 of 1985 superseding the Pass No. 35 of 1964. 4. In the month of August 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied the 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. 4. In the month of August 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied the 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. 6/1991. The prayer of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in Title Suit No. 6/1991 was for a decree declaring that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 47/1985. The other prayers were for payment of rent @ Rs. 128 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. 6. The appellants herein, who were the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in Title Suit No. 6/1991, filed a written statement and took the stand that they were occupying the land after obtaining Temporary Pass/ 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 47/1985 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. In their written statements, the State of Mizoram took a stand that the respondent No. 1 was initially allotted a plot of land by the Revenue Officer of the erstwhile Mizo District Council under Pass No. 35/1964, which was later converted into LSC No. KLB.47/1985. The State respondents also stated that temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was issued to the BRTF for occupation of the suit land, the validity of which was extended. 8. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed the following issues:- wxyz 1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style? zyxw wxyz 2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? The State respondents also stated that temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was issued to the BRTF for occupation of the suit land, the validity of which was extended. 8. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed the following issues:- wxyz 1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style? zyxw wxyz 2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? zyxw wxyz 3) Whether the BRTF had occupied the suit land? zyxw wxyz 4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the rents and compensation for the suit land? zyxw wxyz 5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? To what extent and from whom? zyxw 9. The learned Trial Court came to a finding that the suit was maintainable and that the LSC No. KLB 47/1985 was a valid Land Settlement Certificate. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that the suit land was occupied by the BRTF. 10. With regard to the question on limitation, the Trial Court held that the law of limitation would not be applicable to the case. With regard to issue No. 4 & 5, the learned Trial Court held that the land occupied by the BRTF sometime in 1966, overlapped the land covered by the LSC of the respondent No. 1, which had been borne from Pass No. 35/1964. The learned Trial Court came to a finding that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to the rent for the suit land due to occupation of the same by the BRTF and that the rent should be paid as per the report made by the Deputy Commissioner''s office. Accordingly, the learned Trial court decreed the suit as follows:- wxyz a) It is hereby declared that the land Permit No. 4 of 1970 issued to the BRTF (Defendants No. 1 - 4 is null and void as it was issued in respect of a land already allotted to the Plaintiff prior to the Permit. zyxw wxyz b) It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 47 of 985 and has the right and title over it. zyxw wxyz c) The Defendants No. 1 4 are directed to pay to the Plaintiff the land rental charges at a rate of Rs. zyxw wxyz b) It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 47 of 985 and has the right and title over it. zyxw wxyz c) The Defendants No. 1 4 are directed to pay to the Plaintiff the land rental charges at a rate of Rs. 128/- (Rupees one hundred and twenty eight) only per month w.e.f. May 1967 with interest @ at a rate of 6% per annum till full realization of the full amount and further sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation for damage caused to the fruit bearing trees within a period of two months from the date of this decree. zyxw wxyz d) The Defendants No. 1 4 are directed to give vacant possession of the suit land to the Plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of this decree. zyxw 11. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 21.08.2012, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 6/1991, the appellants i.e., the Union of India have filed the present Regular First Appeal. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly come to a finding that the civil suit was not barred by limitation by relying upon the Governor of Assam''s Notification No. TAD/61/12/64 dated 14.03.1966 and the judgment of this Court in RSA No. 11/2003, "Ramthlengliana Vs. State of Mizoram". She submits that the issue has been laid to rest by the Apex Court in the case of J. Thansiama Vs. State of Mizoram, (2015) 5 GauLT 7 . 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 1989. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned Trial Court has not discussed the genuineness of the LSC No. KLB 47/1985. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the land occupied by the appellants was covered by the Pass/ Permit No. 4/1970, which was issued by the Executive Committee of Mizo District Council. The appellants vacated the land in May, 2010. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the land occupied by the appellants was covered by the Pass/ 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 Pass/ 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 LSC No. KLB 47/1985 was born from Pass No. 35/1964 issued by the Mizo District Council. 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. 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 Pass/ 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. 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. 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 decision that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970, which was issued to the BRTF was null and void. The facts clearly goes to show that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the suit land when he was allotted Pass No. 35/1964. The appellants through the BRTF had occupied the suit land only from August, 1966 and Pass/ Permit No. 4/1970, giving them the right to occupy the land had been given only in the year 1970. As the land had already been allotted by the competent authority to the respondent No. 1 in 1964, it is clear that the issuance of the subsequent temporary Permit/ Pass No. 4/1970 was illegal. Further, on perusal of the land laws applicable in the State of Mizoram during the year 1970, this Court finds that the appellants and the State respondents have not been able to show the law applicable for issuance of Permit No. 4/1970. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the BRTF were in unauthorized occupation of the land of the respondent No. 1, which was initially covered by Pass No. 35/1964 and later converted to LSC No. KLB. 47/1985. This Court also does not find any illegality in issuance of the LSC, inasmuch as, Pass No. 35/1964 has been converted into LSC No. KLB 47/1985 as per Section 11 of the Mizo District(Land and Revenue) Act, 1956. wxyz In the case of Zampuii Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors, (2017) 4 GauLT 749 , this Court has, on interpreting Section 4 & 8 of the Mizoram District (Land & Revenue) Act, 1956 held that allotment of land can only be done in respect of vacant land. Accordingly, land that has been allotted subsequently over a previously allotted land is not valid. The document allotting land over-lapping previously allotted land would not be valid to the extent that it encroaches upon the other land. Accordingly, land that has been allotted subsequently over a previously allotted land is not valid. The document allotting land over-lapping previously allotted land would not be valid to the extent that it encroaches upon the other land. zyxw wxyz In view of above, it is clear that occupancy rights could not have been given to the appellants (BRTF) by the Mizoram District Council in the year 1970, vide Permit No. 4/1970, when the land had already been allotted in favour of the respondent No. 1 in the year 1964. Accordingly, this Court does not find any error in the decision of the learned Trial Court on this aspect. 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. zyxw 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 already 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. 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. 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. 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 Pass/ 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 47/1985 is also covered by Temporary Permit No. 4/1970. As Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 had been allotted to the appellants by the Competent Authority, they are not bound to pay any rent. However, as reflected above, this Court in RSA No. 3/2011 has declared Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 to be null and void. Also, though the appellants have tried to make a challenge to the validity of the LSC No. KLB 47/1985, 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. 6/1991 or in the present appeal. zyxw 21. In view of the above reasons, the appellants herein have to be held to be in illegal occupation/ 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. 128/- per month for LSC No. KLB 47/1985, the appellants would have to pay the said rent amount to the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff. 22. With regard to whether Title Suit No. 6/1991 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 (Supra), the Apex Court has held that the Limitation Act is applicable to the State of Mizoram. 23. In view of the above, Title Suit No. 6/1991 is barred by limitation in so far as the prayer for payment of rent is made w.e.f. the year 1966. In the case of J. Thansiama Vs. State of Mizoram (Supra), the Apex Court has held that the Limitation Act is applicable to the State of Mizoram. 23. In view of the above, Title Suit No. 6/1991 is barred by limitation in so far as the prayer for payment of rent is made w.e.f. the year 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. 24. 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. 6/1991 was filed in August 1991, 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. 4/1989, i.e. August 1988. 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 August 1988 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 25. 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. 26. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds no illegality with the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 6/1991 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 47/1985. 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 47/1985. This Court also does not find any ground to interfere with the direction made by the learned Trial Court to pay rental charges @ Rs. 128/- per month in respect of land covered by KLB 47/1985. 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 August 1988 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. 27. With the above modifications, this appeal is accordingly disposed of. wxyz Decree be prepared accordingly. zyxw wxyz Returned the LCR. zyxw