JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate, for the petitioners and Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant by filing this appeal, has challenged the Judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in the case arising out of reference u/s 18 L.A Act in L.A No. 2/2003, whereby, the learned Trial Court declared that the claimant/respondent in the instant case is entitled to get a compensation for the damage to his crops, that is, trees mentioned in the report submitted by the Commission, and was awarded a compensation of Rs.20,24,102/-(Rupees twenty lakhs twenty four thousand one hundred and two) for the damage of the claimant/respondent is standing crops of trees which were on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof. The trial court also awarded interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of the enhancement amount of compensation. The amount was to be paid by the acquiring department i.e. Ops nos. 2 and 3. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the land belonging to the referring claimant and to as many as 524 persons, measuring an area of 90,22,550.19 Sq.m.= 6741.85 bighas was acquired as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of Dam Axis and Submergence area of Serlui ‘B’ Hydro Electric Power Project. The said land in question is situated on both banks of River Serlui ‘B’ with the V/C area of Saiphai, Bilkhawthlir, Builum, N. Hlimen and Thingdawl. For this acquisition a preliminary Notification U/S. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Govt. of Mizoram (Revenue Department) vide Memo No. K.12011/1/92-REV Dt. 11.06.2002 and for the same purpose a declaration u/s. 6 of the same Act, was issued vide Memo No. K. 12011/1/92-REV dt.6.10.2003. 4. In pursuance of the above Notifications issued by the Government of Mizoram, a notice u/s 9(1) of the Said Act was issued to the interested persons vide Memo No. F.14011/31(B)/94-DC(A)/407 Dt. 16.10.2003 by the Land Acquisition Collector. 11.06.2002 and for the same purpose a declaration u/s. 6 of the same Act, was issued vide Memo No. K. 12011/1/92-REV dt.6.10.2003. 4. In pursuance of the above Notifications issued by the Government of Mizoram, a notice u/s 9(1) of the Said Act was issued to the interested persons vide Memo No. F.14011/31(B)/94-DC(A)/407 Dt. 16.10.2003 by the Land Acquisition Collector. After making necessary enquiry, for awarding the compensation for the land, standing crops and trees etc., L.A Collector awarded compensation to the referring claimant and other persons mentioned jointly to the tune of Rs.5,91,61,354/-(Rupees five crores ninety one lakhs sixty one thousand three hundred and fifty four) only. Out of which, the compensation awarded to the referring claimant was Rs.30,000/- as shown at serial No. 20 of the BLOCK-III of the apportionment of the award. The referring-claimant/respondent and other persons named in the award being aggrieved submitted applications u/s. 18 L.A. Act before the L.A. Collector, for referring the matter to Court of the District Judge as the claimant petitioner and others felt that the assessment of the crops were not properly done and the number of teak trees and other crops that would be submerged would be much more than the numbers assessed by the L.A. Collector. 5. The referring-claimant/respondent then submitted an application in the Court of District & Sessions Judge for appointing a commission to ascertain the damages to be caused within his landed area, which would invariably be submerged in the Serlui Hydel Project. After hearing the counsels for both sides the Court appointed Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana, Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib to conduct a local inspection and the report should contain the following points :- (1) Number of crops/trees with particulars of the size (2) Whether the land is definitely liable to be submerged. (3) If so what is the amount of that would be damages to the land of Rualkhuma & Sangchhunga of Thingdawl Village. The commission report was received on 7.09.2007. Copies were furnished to the parties through their respective counsels. 6. As the report did not give a report of the entire land to be affected, another application was filed by the referring-claimant/respondent to get a better clarification. The commission report was received on 7.09.2007. Copies were furnished to the parties through their respective counsels. 6. As the report did not give a report of the entire land to be affected, another application was filed by the referring-claimant/respondent to get a better clarification. After hearing the counsels of both sides, the Trial Court ordered that a fresh survey of the land of Rualkhuma of Thingdawl be conducted, including the land to be submerged in the Hydel Project and the other portion which are not liable to be submerged but no longer utilized by him and the value of crops therein and to submit the comprehensive report to the court on or before 05.02.2008 by Pu H.T.C. Lalrinchhana, Magistrate, Addl. SDCC, Kolasib. This report was received by the Trial Court on 07.02.2008. 7. Thereafter, the trial court framed the following issues on 23.06.2009. viz. (1) whether the assessment made by the District Collector is reasonable or not. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief claim if so to what extent. 8. During trial the referring-claimant, Shri V. Rualkhuma examined himself as PW and two other witnesses namely Shri F. Lianthuama and Shri K. Laltholeha. They were cross examined by the O.Ps. 9. Shri C. Kapkima, Surveyor, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Aizawl examined himself on behalf of the L.A. Collector and also exhibited the copy of statement prepared by him, marked Ext.D1, he was also cross-examined by the referring-claimant. 10. The learned Trial Court then heard both the parties and on considering the report of the Commission, Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana, wherein in its first report dated 25.07.2007, it was reported that Teak trees and other trees damaged were assessed as Rs.6,30,102/-. In the second report dated 16.1.2008 submitted by Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana it was mentioned that “The comprehensive report thereof in addition to the earlier submission made by me for your further proceeding are annexed hereunto in respect of Pu V. Rualkhuma, Thingdawl.” As per the said report the commission assessed the compensation to be Rs.13,94,000/-. 11. The commission report was not challenged by the parties or their counsels. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana it was mentioned that “The comprehensive report thereof in addition to the earlier submission made by me for your further proceeding are annexed hereunto in respect of Pu V. Rualkhuma, Thingdawl.” As per the said report the commission assessed the compensation to be Rs.13,94,000/-. 11. The commission report was not challenged by the parties or their counsels. And the learned Trial Court relied on the said Commission report and came to the conclusion that the referring-claimant/respondent is entitled to get compensation as per the assessment made by the commission appointed by the court and awarded compensation of Rs.20,24,102/-(Rupees twenty lakhs twenty four thousand one hundred and two) for the damage sustained by the referring claimant by reason of the standing crops of trees which were on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof. The learned Trial Court also awarded interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of the enhancement amount of compensation. The amount was to be paid by the acquiring department. i.e. Ops nos. 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Trial Court this instant appeal was filed. 12. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate for the State appellants submits that the report of the commission cannot be accepted without cross examination since there are many points that need to be explained and clarified. It is not known on what basis the Commission has fixed the rates to the damaged crops in its report dated 25.07.2007 and 16.1.2008. As per the L.A Act, it is only the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector who can fix the rates. That the Commissioner’s report dated 16.1.2008 covers the whole area of the claimant and hence the earlier report dated 19.7.2007 made by Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana should not be counted, that the damaged assessed by the defence witness Shri C. Kapkima is only Rs.30,000/- which is hugely different from the damages assessed by the Commission and thus cannot be relied upon. That the Commissioner’s report dated 16.1.2008 covers the whole area of the claimant and hence the earlier report dated 19.7.2007 made by Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana should not be counted, that the damaged assessed by the defence witness Shri C. Kapkima is only Rs.30,000/- which is hugely different from the damages assessed by the Commission and thus cannot be relied upon. That the report is not on the basis of the order of the court wherein the Commission was to verify (1) Number of crops/trees with particulars of the size (2) Whether the land is definitely liable to be submerged and (3) If so what is the amount of that would be damages to the land of Rualkhuma & Sangchhunga of Thingdawl Village. 13. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondents submits that neither of the parties had prayed for examination of the Commission when he submitted his first report on 25.07.2007 and subsequently when his second report was submitted on 16.1.2008 and now cannot pray for his examination at this belated appellate stage. That as per the provisions of the Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC the report of the Commission becomes part of the record and if the parties wants to examine, they should apply to the court and examine the commissioner. The fact that the OP/respondent did not submit any application for examination of the commissioner makes the court to accept the report in arriving a decision in the present case. However, since it was found that this report did not include the whole area to be assessed the second report was submitted where it clearly mentions that the second report was “in addition” to the previous report and thus the Trial Court had rightly awarded the compensation for the damaged crops/trees of the instant respondent. 14. The assessment was also done, not alone but with the Surveyor, Land Revenue & Settlement Officer and the S.D.O. representing the Deputy Commissioner and thus the rates were also fixed under the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel had relied on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1976 AIR (ALL) 121. 15. 14. The assessment was also done, not alone but with the Surveyor, Land Revenue & Settlement Officer and the S.D.O. representing the Deputy Commissioner and thus the rates were also fixed under the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel had relied on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court reported in 1976 AIR (ALL) 121. 15. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and on peruse of the documents on record, it is seen that a local commission was appointed by the learned Trial Court on the request of the parties and that when the report of the commission was submitted neither of the parties had raised any objection or prayed for the examination of the Commissioner, the Allahabad High Court reported in 1976 AIR (ALL) 121 in State of U.P. vs. Smt. Ram Sri & Anr. (supra) held that : “32.…….He submitted that the report of the first commissioner was inadmissible in evidence inasmuch as the said commissioner having not been produced as a witness, the report submitted by him could not be read in evidence. Before dealing with the submission on the statement of Sri Prem Chand, we may deal with the legal aspect of the admissibility of the first report. 33. Order XXVI Rule 10 (2) of Civil P.C. lays down that the report of the commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid provision that it is not necessary in order that the report becomes evidence that the statement of the commissioner should also be made in the court for the purpose of proving it. It is up to the choice of the party to examine a commissioner in respect of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report. But the examination of the commissioner is not at all required by the aforesaid provision for the purpose of proving the report. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in Haji Kutubuddin v. Allah Banda ( AIR 1973 All. 235 ) is not at all relevant on the above controversy. If this case, the High Court did not hold that the statement of the commissioner was necessary in order to prove it or that without such a statement the same could not be read in evidence. 235 ) is not at all relevant on the above controversy. If this case, the High Court did not hold that the statement of the commissioner was necessary in order to prove it or that without such a statement the same could not be read in evidence. We, therefore, do not accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the report of the first commissioner was not admissible as he had not been produced as a witness. The provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC runs thus : “10. Procedure of Commissioner-(1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court. (2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit. Commissioner may be examined in person – The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any part of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. – (3) Where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit.” 16. In view of the above, I find that the appellant cannot take the plea that the Trial Court had erred in not examining the commissioner when no such prayer for examination of the commission was made in the trial court by the neither of the parties. 17. I also find that the subsequent report submitted by the Commissioner Dr. In view of the above, I find that the appellant cannot take the plea that the Trial Court had erred in not examining the commissioner when no such prayer for examination of the commission was made in the trial court by the neither of the parties. 17. I also find that the subsequent report submitted by the Commissioner Dr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana on 16.1.2008 clearly mentions that “The comprehensive report thereof in addition to the earlier submission made by me for your further proceeding are annexed hereunto in respect of Pu V. Rualkhuma, Thingdawl” As per the report the Commission on 16.01.2008, assessed the compensation to be Rs.13,94,000/-, while the commission report dated 25.07.2007 assessed the compensation to be Rs.6,30,102/-, that on peruse of the commission reports submitted, it is seen that the report was made in the presence and signed by a representatives of the Deputy Commissioner along with a Surveyor, Land Revenue & Settlement Department. Thus the assessment of the damaged crops and trees was done by the representative of the Deputy Commissioner, Land revenue & Settlement Department and the Commissioner Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana who had approved the report. 18. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that there can be no doubt that the Commission appointed by the Trial Court had on 16.01.2008 submitted its first report, which was however found incomplete and as clearly stated by the Commission, the second report dated 25.07.2007 was “in addition” to the first report. It appears that the Court and the parties were satisfied with the report then submitted and had found it not necessary to examine the Commissioner, Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana with regards to the report submitted by him. 19. For the above reasons, I find that no sufficient cause has been made out for setting aside the Judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in L.A. 2/2005 and this Court is restrained to dismiss the Regular First Appeal No.4 of 2015.