JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Linda Fambawl, the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the dismissal of Money Suit No. 1/2015vide Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2019, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip. 3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff’s is that he was allotted some portion of land within the area of N. Mualcheng Village Council in the year 2001 wherein, he planted as many as 380 orange trees and earned not less than Rs.1,60,000/-per annum since 2009 and enjoyed the products for the last four years. That on 28th March, 2014 (Friday) the electric conductor/wire which hung across the land of the plaintiff got damaged and broke in the land of the Appellant/plaintiff due to the negligence of the respondents/defendants. As a result of the broken live electric wire, 150 number of his orange trees were burnt to ashes. That the appellant/plaintiff had immediately reported the matter to the state respondents and prayed for compensation but to no avail and hence he filed the case in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip. The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant no.5 who denied that the appellant had planted 380 orange trees as stated by him and that as many as 150 number of orange trees were destroyed by the broken electric wire. That on spot verification only 18 numbers of trees were burnt down by the live electric wire. That the appellant/plaintiff could not produce any certificate to show that the land was allotted to him. On the basis of the pleadings the lower court had framed the following issues : Issue No.1 Whether the suit is maintainable? Issue No.2 Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? Issue No.3 Whether the plaintiff was allotted land by the Village Council, N. Mualcheng within the area of N. Mualcheng Village Council? Issue No.4 Whether the plaintiff had planted 300 numbers of orange trees within the land allotted by the Village Council, N. Mualcheng and whether 150 orange trees were burnt to ashes by the broken 132 KV line on 23rd March, 2014 ? Issue No.5 Whether the broken 132 KV Line was due to negligence on the part of the defendant? Issue No.6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? Issue No.5 Whether the broken 132 KV Line was due to negligence on the part of the defendant? Issue No.6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? If so to what extend? 4. After examining four plaintiff witnesses and two defendant witnesses, the learned Trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 in favour of the defendant/Government respondents relying upon the ruling passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Thantluanga & 8 Ors. v. State of Mizoram & 5 others in WP(C) No.139 of 2016 wherein this court held that “Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1983 is to the effect that a village Council is competent to allot sites within its jurisdiction only for residential purposes. The Village Council accordingly has no power to allot Garden Pass or any other Pass for agriculture purposes. The issuance of a Garden Pass by the Village Council does not give any right to the pass holders to claim any form of compensation, as they are not the owners of the land”. The learned lower court reasoned that even if the plaintiff had a valid Village Council Pass, he had no legal basis to claim for compensation for his orange trees. That the plaintiff in the absence of any valid permit or document to prove that the land was allotted to him or that the orange plantation was under the NLUP Scheme has no locus standi to file the suit and is not maintainable. The lower court however decided issue no. 4 & 5 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. From the evidence adduce in the court, the learned Sr. Civil judge held that 150 orange trees of the plaintiff was burnt to ashes on that particular day and that the broken 132KV line appear faulty and no action was taken by the authority even when it was reported. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sr. Civil Judge where the learned Court below dismissed the Money Suit No. 1/2015 vide Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2019, holding that the plaintiff case was not maintainable and the plaintiff has no locus standi in the case, the instant appeal has been filed. 5. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Sr. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Sr. Civil Judge where the learned Court below dismissed the Money Suit No. 1/2015 vide Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2019, holding that the plaintiff case was not maintainable and the plaintiff has no locus standi in the case, the instant appeal has been filed. 5. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Lower Court failed to realize the fact that the plaintiff has claimed compensation for damages of his orange trees planted in the land granted by the village council authorities. That the learned Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip has decided in favour of the defendant government relying upon the ruling passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri. Thantluangs & 8 Ors. v. State of Mizoram & 5 others (supra) without application of judicial mind. That the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid ruling and the instant case has no similarities so as to apply the ruling passed by the Hon’ble High Court. That the Plaintiff/appellant has just claimed compensation for damages caused to his orange trees by a broken live wire and not the value of the land. In fact, the defendants/respondents have never disputed the ownership of the orange trees that were damaged by the electric conductor/wire. Accordingly, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip rightly decided the issue No.4 & 5 in favour of the plaintiff, even then, the learned Court below was of the view that the plaintiff did not have locus standi to file the present suit. The learned Sr. Counsel further pointed out that the defendants/instant respondents did not raise any objection regarding the non-production of any documents or valid pass by the plaintiff and the ownership of the orange trees was not disputed by the parties in the trial court. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. 200/2015 in C. Lalremtluanga & 109 Ors. vs. State of Mizoram & 2 Ors., where the court held that in the matter of enhancement of compensation under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act the question of application of Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1953 does not arise and allowed the writ petition. 6. Mrs. vs. State of Mizoram & 2 Ors., where the court held that in the matter of enhancement of compensation under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act the question of application of Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1953 does not arise and allowed the writ petition. 6. Mrs. Linda Fambawl, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand submits that the learned court below has rightly decided that the case was not maintainable since no documents were produced to prove that the plaintiff had the authority to plant the orange trees within the said land. No Village Council pass or any document was produced to show that he had the right to plant the orange trees which was burnt by the live electric wire. In fact the appellant encroached upon the land which did not belong to him. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the documents on record. On the point whether the defendant respondent can claim compensation for the orange trees burnt to ashes by the faulty broken 132KV line without producing any document to show that the appellant/plaintiff is having any pass over the land where the orange trees were grown, the plaintiff has deposed that he was allotted some portion of the land at Mualcheng where he had planted as many as 380 orange trees in the year 2001. That he has been enjoying the products of since 2009 and the plaintiff and his family depended solely on the product of the orange trees and that his orange plantation was started under the New Land Use Policy (NLUP). The Plaintiff witnesses have also clearly stated that the plaintiff was having a fruit/orange garden and this fact was not disputed during the cross examination of the witnesses. Further, the defense witnesses have also not denied that the orange garden belonged to the plaintiff. The defense witness Lawmsiama in his examination clearly states that he had gone to the garden of the plaintiff on March 2015 as he was detained by the department officials to perform re-verification of the number of orange trees that were burnt down. He has described that the plaintiff has orange trees on the lower end and also on the eastern part. These two areas are bordered by shrubs. He has described that the plaintiff has orange trees on the lower end and also on the eastern part. These two areas are bordered by shrubs. The second defense witness also confirms that the plaintiff has orange gardens on the upper and lower portion which was bordered by shrubs. He further deposed that when the plaintiff’s garden caught fire he too had gone to put out the fire. The evidence of the defence witnesses was mainly on the number of orange trees that were burnt down. From the evidence adduced by both the parties it is well established that the plaintiff was having an orange garden, a portion of which was burnt down due the fire that was caused by the live 132KV line which belonged to the Respondents. It is seen from the evidence adduced that the ownership of the orange trees which were planted by the plaintiff since 2001 has not been questioned or challenged at any point of time. Since this is not a case regarding the acquisition of the land where the orange trees are grown by the appellant, I find that the question whether the plaintiff is having a pass or a permit to over the land where he has the orange tree is not an issue in this case. The learned lower court had decided the matter in favour of the defendant/respondents by mainly relying on the Judgment and order dated 11.05.2017 passed in Shri. Thantluanga & 8 Ors. v. State of Mizoram & 5 others (supra) where the court observed that Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act, 1983 that a village Council is competent to allot sites within its jurisdiction only for residential purposes. The Village Council accordingly has no power to allot Garden Pass or any other Pass for agriculture purposes. The issuance of a Garden Pass by the Village Council does not give any right to the pass holders to claim any form of compensation, as they are not the owners of the land”. However, this view was taken by the court in a completely different set of circumstances, wherein this view was taken in deciding the issue for payment of compensation for damage of the crops of the petitioner on the acquisition the lands through the railway alignment construction project. However, this view was taken by the court in a completely different set of circumstances, wherein this view was taken in deciding the issue for payment of compensation for damage of the crops of the petitioner on the acquisition the lands through the railway alignment construction project. The petitioner here were issued Garden Passes by the Village Council Mualkhang and they were not included in the award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 8. For the above reasons, I am of the considered view that the learned court below had erred in deciding issue Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 in favour of the defendants/state respondents and the judgment order dated 08.11.2019, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Serchhip with regards to the findings of the lower court that in view of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court decision in the case of Shri. Thantluanga & 8 Ors. v. State of Mizoram & 5 others in WP(C) No.139 of 2016, the plaintiff had no legal basis to claim for compensation for his orange trees is set aside. 9. I find that the learned lower court decided issue Nos. 4 & 5 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant by taking into consideration the evidence adduce by the plaintiff and defense witnesses and also the documents produced in the lower Court regarding the verification reports of the number of trees that were burnt to ashes. Therein, the learned Sr. Civil Judge came to a finding that 150 orange trees of the plaintiff was burnt to ashes on that particular day and that the broken 132KV line appeared faulty even before it fell. This finding of the learned lower court is not under challenge in this appeal petition. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Learned Court that 150 orange trees of the plaintiff was burnt to ashes on that particular day and that the broken 132KV line appeared faulty even before it fell. 10. In view of the above discussions, this court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to be compensated for his burnt 150 numbers of orange trees, which was caused by the broken live 132KV line for which the state respondents is held responsible. 10. In view of the above discussions, this court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to be compensated for his burnt 150 numbers of orange trees, which was caused by the broken live 132KV line for which the state respondents is held responsible. Thus, the state respondents shall calculate the compensation amount to be paid as per the uniform rates of compensation in respect of buildings, crop and plants etc. duly notified by the Land Revenue & Settlement Department dated 28th November 2013 since the incident took place on 25th March 2014 with an interest of Rs. 6 % per annum (prevailing bank interest rate) from the date the cause of action arose i.e. 25th March 2014 till the actual payment. 11. RFA No.01 of 2020, accordingly stands disposed.