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 17.08.2012, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Title Suit N. 4/1989, by which the appellants have been directed to pay rental charges for occupation of the lands of the respondent No. 1 covered by two Land Settlement Certificates i.e., LSC No. KLB 44/1985 and LSC No. KLB 45/1985, 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 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 44/1985 and KLB 45/1985, while the appellants claim their right to occupy the land on the basis of Temporary Permit No. 4/1970. 3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is that her father, R. Thansanga (L), was allotted a plot of land for dwelling plus garden at Kolasib Hmar Veng, Kolasib, Mizoram in the year 1942, by the then Chief (Lal) namely Shri Vankhuma. Her father had planted various kinds of fruit bearing trees within the land. In the year 1963, her father sold portions of the land to Shri. J. Manliana (L), Smt. Biakkungi and Shri Lalhlira. In the year 1972, Permit bearing No. 10 of 1972 was issued over the land by the Revenue Officer of the erstwhile Mizo District Council. Even though portions of the land were sold to the three persons as early as 1963, the Pass/Permit for the land was in the name of her father (R. Thansanga) till 1985. In the year 1985, Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) was issued in the name of her father, over the remaining portion of the land measuring an area of 10,880.72 Sq.ft. In the year 1985, Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) was issued in the name of her father, over the remaining portion of the land measuring an area of 10,880.72 Sq.ft. vide LSC No. KLB 45 of 1985. wxyz The further case of the respondent No. 1 in respect of LSC No. KLB 44/1985 is that in the year 1960, the father of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was allotted another plot of land by the Mizo District Council, vide House Pass No. 30 of 1960. The same was superceded by District Council vide Pass No. 457 of 1963. Her father planted different kinds of fruit bearing trees on the said land. The father of the respondent No. 1 applied to the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Government of Mizoram for issuing Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) in respect of District Council Pass No. 457/1963. The Government of Mizoram thereafter issued LSC No. KLB 44 of 1985, supeceeding Pass No. 457 of 1963. zyxw 4. In the month of August 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied respondent No. 1''s father''s lands mentioned above and during their occupation, the BRTF destroyed about 85 Orange trees, 105 Assam Lemon trees, 20 Mango trees, and some Zawngtah 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 lands by the BRTF, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 4/1989. The prayer of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in Title Suit No. 4/1989 was for a decree declaring that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the lands covered by LSC No. KLB 44/1985 and KLB No. 45/1985. The other prayers were for payment of rent @ Rs. 779.40p 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 had been worked out by the office of the Deputy Commissioner as follows; Rs. 453 per month for LSC No. KLB 44/1985 and Rs. 236.40 per month for LSC No. KLB 45/1985. 6. The appellants herein, who were the defendant Nos. The rate of rent had been worked out by the office of the Deputy Commissioner as follows; Rs. 453 per month for LSC No. KLB 44/1985 and Rs. 236.40 per month for LSC No. KLB 45/1985. 6. The appellants herein, who were the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in Title Suit No. 4/1989, 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 44/1985 and KLB No. 45/1985 were obtained fraudulently by deceiving the Authority concerned and as such, the same were 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 present suit is maintainable in its present form and style? zyxw wxyz 2) Whether the court has jurisdiction? zyxw wxyz 3) Whether the LSC No. KLB 44 of 1985 and No. KLB 45 of 1985 are valid or not? And if valid whether it confers any right to the Plaintiff? zyxw wxyz 4) Whether the suit is barred by limitation, principle of waiver and acquiescence? zyxw wxyz 5) Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to file the suit? zyxw wxyz 6) Whether the Defendant BRTF is occupying the land and if so whether legal or illegal and since when they occupied the land? zyxw wxyz 7) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? zyxw 9. The learned Trial Court came to a finding that the suit was maintainable and that the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that the LSC No. KLB 44/1985 and LSC No. KLB 45/1985 were valid Land Settlement Certificates issued in accordance with the applicable land laws of the State. 10. The learned Trial Court also came to a finding that the LSC No. KLB 44/1985 and LSC No. KLB 45/1985 were valid Land Settlement Certificates issued in accordance with the applicable land laws of the State. 10. With regard to the question on limitation, the Trial Court held that the law of limitation would not be applicable to the case. The learned Trial Court also held that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff had the locus standii to file the case. With regard to issue No. 6, the learned Trial Court held that the land occupied by the BRTF sometime in 1966/1967, over lapped the land covered by the LSCs of the respondent No. 1, which had been borne from House Pass No. 30/1960. As the House Pass in the name of the respondent No. 1 had been issued earlier than the Permit issued to the BRTF, the Trial Court held that the original owner of the land was the respondent No. 1. It accordingly came to a finding that the BRTF were in illegal occupation of the lands of the respondent No. 1, as the State Authorities could not have issued Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 in respect of lands, which had been already allotted to another person, in an earlier point of time. With regard to issue No. 7, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit as follows:- wxyz "a) It is hereby declared that the Permit No. 4 of 1970 issued to the BRTF was null and void. zyxw wxyz b) It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff is the legal owner of the suit lands covered by LSC No. KLB No. 44 of 1985 and LSC No. KLB 45 of 1985 has title and rights over the lands. zyxw wxyz c) The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay land rental charges at a rate of Rs. 453/- per month in respect of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 44 of 1985 and Rs. 236.40p per month in respect of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 45 of 1985 to the Plaintiff w.e.f. the month of May 1967 till full realization of the amount with interest @ at a rate of Rs. 6% per annum within a period of three months with further sum amounting to Rs. 236.40p per month in respect of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 45 of 1985 to the Plaintiff w.e.f. the month of May 1967 till full realization of the amount with interest @ at a rate of Rs. 6% per annum within a period of three months with further sum amounting to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for damaged crops. zyxw wxyz d) The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are directed to give vacant possession of the suit lands to the Plaintiff within the period of three months." zyxw 11. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Decree dated 17.08.2012, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 4/1989, 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 had 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 44/1985 and LSC No. KLB 45/1985. She also submits that the land covered by LSC No. 45/1985, covering an area of 3.44 bighas had been made from Permit No. 10/1972 covering 15 bighas. The disappearance of approximately 11.66 bighas of land in LSC No. 45/1985 implies that the LSC No. 45/1985 is invalid, as the area does not tally in the two land documents. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the land occupied by the appellants was covered by the Pass 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 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 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. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court, Aizawl District, did not have the jurisdiction to try the case in Aizawl, as the land was located in Kolasib District. She also submits that the Trial Court has wrongly declared the Departmental Pass No. 4/1970 as null and void, without giving any reasons for the same. She also submits that there was no discussion as to how the Land Certificates had been obtained by the respondent No. 1, when the land itself was under the possession of the appellants, on the strength of a Pass duly issued by a Competent Authority. 16. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff submits that LSC No. KLB 44/1985 was born from House Pass No. 30/1960 issued by the Mizo District Council, while LSC No. KLB 45/1985 was born from the plot of land allotted to the father of the respondent No. 1 by the Chief Sh. Vankhuma in the year 1942, which was subsequently converted into Permit No. 10/1972 and the LSC No. KLB 45/1985. 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 the present respondent No. 1''s father. 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 the present respondent No. 1''s father. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 20. 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 findings of the learned Trial Court that Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was null and void, was on the ground that the land which it covered, had already been allotted to the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff vide House Pass No. 30/1960. This Court does not find any error in the findings 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. Besides the above, this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2013 passed in RSA No. 3/2011, "The Union of India Vs. 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. 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. 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. 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 44/1985 and KLB 45/1985 are 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. 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 44/1985 and KLB 45/1985, 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. 4/1989 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 father of the present respondent No. 1 and out of which different Land Settlement Certificates had been issued, this Court finds that the facts in RSA No. 3/2011 are 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. 453 per month for LSC No. KLB 44/1985 and Rs. 326.40 per month for KLB 45/1985, the appellants would have to pay the said rent amount to the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff. 23. With regard to whether Title Suit No. 4/1989 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. 24. 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. 24. In view of the above, Title Suit No. 4/1989 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. 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. 4/1989 was filed in the year 1989, 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. December, 1989. This Court has taken the date of filing of Title Suit No. 4/1989 to be December, 1989, inasmuch as, the original records had burnt down and the last month on which the suit could have been filed in the year 1989 would be December, 1989. 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 December, 1986 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. As regards the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit should have been tried in the Courts in Kolasib District, as the land in issue is situated in Kolasib District, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court in Aizawl District also has the jurisdiction to try the suit. The reason for the same is that though Kolasib District is a different administrative district from the administrative district of Aizawl under the Govt. of Mizoram, Kolasib District comes within the territorial area of the Aizawl Judicial District. The reason for the same is that though Kolasib District is a different administrative district from the administrative district of Aizawl under the Govt. of Mizoram, Kolasib District comes within the territorial area of the Aizawl Judicial District. Though Mizoram is presently having 11 (eleven) administrative district divided into 2 (two) judicial districts, i.e., Aizawl District and Lunglei District, Kolasib Administrative District comes within Aizawl Judicial District. 27. 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. 28. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds no illegality with the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2012 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 4/1989 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 lands covered by LSC Nos. KLB 44/1985 and KLB 45/1985. This Court also does not find any ground to interfere with the direction made by the learned Trial Court to pay rental charges @ Rs. 453/- per month in respect of land covered by KLB 44/1985 and Rs. 236.40 per month in respect of land covered by LSC No. KLB 45/1985.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 lands would have to be paid only from December, 1986 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. 29. With the above modifications, this appeal is accordingly disposed of. wxyz Decree be prepared accordingly. zyxw wxyz Returned the LCR. zyxw