JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Also heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 10. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure-21) passed by the respondent No. 8, by which Permit No. 229/1962 issued to the petitioner by the erstwhile Mizo District Council, has been cancelled. The petitioner has also claimed rental compensation from the respondent authorities for occupation of his land by the Security Forces w.e.f. 1966 till date along with interest and for the period thereafter, until the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 vacate his land. 3. Be it stated herein that this is the second time the petitioner has approached this Court. The earlier writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 78/2014 was disposed of at the motion stage vide Order dated 07.08.2014 by constituting a Joint Spot Verification Team to conduct spot verification on the claim of the petitioner and also verify his permit within a specified time. It was further directed that if the petitioner was found entitled to be paid compensation, the claim and payment of compensation be also made within a specified time frame of 4 (four) weeks. In terms of the Court’s direction, the constituted Joint Verification Team conducted a joint spot verification on 15.10.2014 and as per its report, the genuineness of the Permit No. 229/1962 belonging to the petitioner could not be proved by the District Office of Land Revenue & Settlement, Mamit due to non availability of the connected paper or guard file. It was stated that the same may be checked and verified in the Office of the respondent No. 9 i.e. Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl. The report further stated that land was currently being occupied by the Border Security Force (BSF) and the same location was claimed by one Mr. Lalsailova Sailo of Phuldungsei and whose case was under process. The report also stated that old trenches dug by the Security Forces were visible at several locations to prove their occupation of the land. 4. The report further stated that land was currently being occupied by the Border Security Force (BSF) and the same location was claimed by one Mr. Lalsailova Sailo of Phuldungsei and whose case was under process. The report also stated that old trenches dug by the Security Forces were visible at several locations to prove their occupation of the land. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 10 vide Letter dated 16.01.2015 based on the findings of the Joint Verification Team, assessed the rental charges payable to the petitioner and submitted the same to the respondent No. 8, the respondent No. 8 vide Letter dated 09.03.2015 directed the respondent No. 10 to clarify certain points and thereafter, the respondent No. 10 forwarded the joint verification report along with the assessment of rental charges to the Commandant, 39th Assam Rifles for necessary action along with a copy to the respondent No. 7. Despite this, as no payment was forthcoming, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 21/2015. Contempt Petition was contested by respondents claiming that the respondent No. 9 had leased out the land involved to the respondent No. 5 vide certificate of Land Lease No. DLP No. 23/2001 which was issued on 12.01.2001 for a period of 25 years i.e. w.e.f. 01.08.1999 to 31.07.2024. Further, the respondent No. 8 vide Order dated 26.04.2016 passed an order in favour of the petitioner treating the two Village Council Passes overlapping the petitioner’s District Council Permit No. 229/1962 to be null and void. The two Village Council Passes were Pass No. 7/1965 issued to Mr. R. Lalchawiliana and Pass No. NIL dated 22.02.1965 issued to Mr. Lalsailova Sailo. 5. In view of such a stand, the respondent No. 8 was directed to file an affidavit clarifying the stand of the Revenue Department. Respondent No. 8 then filed an additional affidavit clarifying that the BSF was the legal owner of the land since the petitioner neither utilized nor paid any tax for the land which he claimed to be his. The respondent No. 8 also annexed a copy of the impugned Order dated 28.03.2017 by which Permit No. 229/1962 issued to the petitioner was cancelled on the grounds mentioned therein. 6. Thereafter, in view of such a development, the petitioner withdrew the contempt petition on 08.05.2017 with liberty to challenge the impugned order passed on 28.03.2017. The respondent No. 8 also annexed a copy of the impugned Order dated 28.03.2017 by which Permit No. 229/1962 issued to the petitioner was cancelled on the grounds mentioned therein. 6. Thereafter, in view of such a development, the petitioner withdrew the contempt petition on 08.05.2017 with liberty to challenge the impugned order passed on 28.03.2017. After the cancellation of the petitioner’s permit vide Order dated 28.03.2017, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice on 29.06.2017 asking him to show-cause before 20.07.2017 as to why his permit should not be cancelled and pending his reply and until further orders, the earlier cancellation order dated 28.03.2017 was kept in abeyance. 7. However, the petitioner did not submit his reply and therefore during the pendency of the writ petition, his permit was cancelled vide the impugned Order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure-21). As a result of the cancellation, the petitioner sought for and was permitted to amend his writ petition to challenge the said cancellation order. 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons mentioned for giving the show-cause notice and the reasons for the cancellation of the petitioner’s land permit are not similar. Besides, Section 33(2) of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) has also been violated. The said provision provides that no certificate shall be cancelled unless the holder or the person having interest therein is given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such cancellation. By further referring to the explanation given below Rule 25 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Rules, 2013 (Rules of 2013), the learned counsel submits that the period under which the land is not developed or utilized due to extraneous reasons, such as, forcible occupation of the land by security forces, will be exempted. He submits that it is the consistent stand of the petitioner that his land permit which was issued in the year 1962 was occupied by the Security Forces since the year 1966 and therefore, the reasons assigned for cancelling his permit cannot be sustained. By also referring to Rule 30(2) of the Rules of 2017, the learned counsel submits that for non-payment of land revenue due to forcible occupation of Security Forces or Para-military Force or any other authority, appropriate land revenue and taxes shall be recovered at the time of release of rental charges or compensation as the case may be. By also referring to Rule 30(2) of the Rules of 2017, the learned counsel submits that for non-payment of land revenue due to forcible occupation of Security Forces or Para-military Force or any other authority, appropriate land revenue and taxes shall be recovered at the time of release of rental charges or compensation as the case may be. By further referring the Rule 36 & 37 of the Rules of 2017, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, submits that the said provisions are for recovery of arrears and notice of demand. Since there is a provision for imposing penal interest on a defaulter and the provision for issuing a notice of demand, the respondents in the Revenue Department without following such procedures cannot cancel the permit of the petitioner unilaterally. The permit of the petitioner was issued under Section 3 of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1956 and any action taken under the said Act being saved by the repeal and saving clause under Section 131 Act of 2013, it is the respondent authorities themselves who have violated the relevant provisions of law. Mr. A.R. Malhotra also submits that the issue of not converting the permit into appropriate land Pass as directed by the State Government through Notification dated 27.04.1981 was never part of the show-cause notice while the same was one of the reason for cancelling his permit. He, therefore, submits that the respondent authorities have acted most arbitrarily in cancelling the petitioner’s permit while denying him of any rental compensation which otherwise is due to him. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities: (i) Shekhar Ghosh vs. Union of India and Another, (2007) 1 SCC 331 (ii) Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 9. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate submits that the permit of the petitioner was only cancelled for violation of the terms and conditions, which was clearly stipulated in the body of the permit itself. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition more particularly at paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, she submits that the petitioner was given a notice for affording him an opportunity to show cause as to why his Pass should not be cancelled but he refused to submit any reply to the notice. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition more particularly at paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, she submits that the petitioner was given a notice for affording him an opportunity to show cause as to why his Pass should not be cancelled but he refused to submit any reply to the notice. In fact, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had paid land taxes at any point of time. The fact that the Village Council concerned during the relevant time had issued Passes to two different persons over the same plot of land clearly goes to show that the petitioner never looked after his land. The State Government according to the learned Government Advocate has been issuing notification for the information of the general public from time to time that the Pass issued by the erstwhile District Council should be converted into periodic patta or patta. However, the petitioner never approached the respondent authorities for the conversion of his permit at any point of time. This clearly goes to show that the petitioner never utilized his land for the purpose for which it was given. He also did not pay any tax for the land. Thus, having violated the terms and conditions of the permit, the same was rightly cancelled by the respondent authority. The writ petition therefore has no merit and should be dismissed. 10. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 1 to 6 filed on 23.10.2018 submits that the land in question as claimed by the petitioner was never under his occupation and it was allotted to the BSF by the Directorate of Land Revenue and Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram of lease basis w.e.f. 01.08.1999 to 31.07.2024 i.e. for a period of 25 years. The BSF is and has been paying the revenue charges for occupation of the land on lease basis from time to time and therefore, it has every right to occupy the said land. The permit of the petitioner, on the other hand, is only vague and that even during the joint verification, the genuineness of the same could not be ascertained. Apart from the petitioner, there were 2 (two) other persons who had claimed ownership over the same plot of land. 11. The permit of the petitioner, on the other hand, is only vague and that even during the joint verification, the genuineness of the same could not be ascertained. Apart from the petitioner, there were 2 (two) other persons who had claimed ownership over the same plot of land. 11. The same, however, has been cancelled by the State authorities and the permit of the petitioner is also no different and it was rightly cancelled. She thus submits that the writ petition has no merit and should be dismissed. 12. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 13. According to the petitioner, he was issued Permit No. 229/1962 by the erstwhile District Council for the purpose of wet rice cultivation/garden/farm/any other agriculture purposes. A perusal of the said permit which otherwise is not very legible would go to show that there is a column for entering the amount of yearly tax payable and also a column for showing the validity of the permit amongst others. The body of the permit also contains as many as 8 (eight) conditions. One such condition is that the land allotted should be fully utilized for the purpose for which it is allotted and for no other purpose and that it should not be left uncultivated for more than 3 (three) consecutive years. Besides this, the permit holder is required to pay tax annually as assessed from time to time by the Executive Committee. Violation of any of such condition would result in its cancellation as per condition No. 8. It may be noticed that one of the reason for the cancellation of the petitioner’s permit was that he failed to pay tax. The same has been the consistent stand of the State respondents in the show-cause notice dated 29.06.2017 and in the earlier order of cancellation dated 28.03.2017. The petitioner not only has failed to make any response to the same by way of a reply to the show-cause notice but also the pleadings in the writ petition and in fact in his earlier writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 78/2014 (on seeing the record) are silent. The petitioner not only has failed to make any response to the same by way of a reply to the show-cause notice but also the pleadings in the writ petition and in fact in his earlier writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 78/2014 (on seeing the record) are silent. According to him, he was issued the permit in the year 1962 while his land came to be occupied by the Security Forces due to the disturbances, which started in the year 1966. Therefore, if his claim is to be believed, he would have paid the tax for four years and utilized the land for the purpose it was given. But there are no pleadings to this effect. As already stated herein above, one of the condition for ownership over the land is by paying tax assessed by the authority concerned on regular basis. But the petitioner has nowhere shown that he complied with the same, at least, upto some point of time. To find out as to whether the petitioner had made any statements in this regard, the pleadings in the earlier round of writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 78/2014 has also been perused. However, there is no indication that the petitioner had indeed paid tax for the allotment of his permit. It is true that there are certain conditions and guidelines provided under the Act of 2013 and the Rules of 2013 by which, the earlier revenue laws has been repealed. However, the fact remains that the permit of the petitioner was kept in the dark and for which, it is he who is solely responsible. Had the petitioner approached the State respondents at any point of time for payment of tax or for conversion of the permit into patta/periodic patta there would have been no scope for issuance of the land lease i.e. DLP No. 23/2001 to the BSF by overlapping the permit of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has come up with the claim for compensation for the first time when he filed his earlier writ petition on 06.08.2014. His claim for compensation is therefore only a belated claim and if not an afterthought. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has come up with the claim for compensation for the first time when he filed his earlier writ petition on 06.08.2014. His claim for compensation is therefore only a belated claim and if not an afterthought. 14. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Shekhar Ghosh (supra) and Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra), which is regarding post decisional hearing when the authority has already made up its mind, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner due to the fact that the petitioner who claims to have been issued a permit for his land in the year 1962 did not agitate his caused for a long long time and in fact, until he filed his earlier writ petition in the year 2014. The materials on record only go to show that he has failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the permit and therefore, the cancellation of his permit either on 28.03.2017 or on 08.08.2017 would not make much of a difference. In other words, the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence shall come into play. For having a possible permission to develop his land under permit from the year 1962 till 1966 i.e. the year which according to him was the year when his land started to be occupied by the Security Forces, he cannot be said to have an entitlement for rental compensation or any form of compensation at this belated stage. 15. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.