Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 748 (GAU)

Kalendor Chakma v. State of Mizoram

2022-07-15

NELSON SAILO

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the State respondents. 2. This is the second time the writ petitioner is before this Court. The earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 21/2017 was filed challenging the eviction order dated 17.12.2015 by which the settlement at Tuichawngchhuah village (the Village) was declared to be illegal and unauthorized. The inhabitants of the said settlement were therefore asked to vacate the place immediately upon receipt of the eviction order. The writ petition came to be disposed of vide judgment & order dated 28.04.2018 whereby, the impugned eviction order dated 17.12.2015 was set aside after this Court came to a finding that the mandate of Section 26 of the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 (V.C Act) was not followed before the issuance of the impugned eviction order. It was also observed that the respondents were not precluded from taking a decision afresh but the same should strictly be in conformity with the mandate of the provisions of the V.C Act. 3. After the disposal of the earlier writ petition in the above manner, the respondent authorities in the Local Administration Department (LAD) vide order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure-2) served a notice to the settlers of the Village, asking them to vacate the settlement within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the notice failing which the imposition of a fine of Rs.100/-per day per family in terms of Section 26(5) of the V.C Act would be made. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner is again before this Court through the instant writ petition, praying for the impugned order to be set aside and quashed. 4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he and his family along with 49 others similarly situated families who belong to the Chakma community are residing in the Village which has been in existence even before the country’s independence and in fact, it’s existence has been recorded as early as in the 1951 census, the census for the erstwhile Lushai Hills District of the State of Assam. That the petitioner, his family and other families are directly and gravely affected by the impugned eviction order dated 28.05.2019 purportedly issued under Section 26(2) of the V.C Act whereby, the 49 Chakma minority tribal families of the Village have been asked to vacate the village within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. According to the petitioner, the impugned eviction notice is illegal and with malafide intention and that the same is backed up by non-state actors despite the fact that the settlement existed even before the V.C Act came into force. The impugned Notice dated 28.05.2019 was served through the respondent No. 2 on 05.06.2019. 5. According to the petitioner, the writ petition is filed for the benefit of the entire 49 families consisting of 220 persons of the Village under Tuichawng Village Council in the District of Lunglei in Mizoram. That it is not possible for each and every person of the Village to come before this Court as petitioners due to their illiteracy, poor economic and social condition. Therefore, the petitioner being the Karbari (village head) of the Village is before this Court on behalf of everyone. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the Village is a very old settlement of the Chakmas and has been in existence since the British period. In fact, the existence of the village was duly recorded in the Census of 1951 Assam Lushai Hills District Census Handbook. As per the Handbook at paragraph No. 18, the Village had 15 houses with its total inhabitants of 86 persons, which included 43 males and 43 females. The petitioner contends that the Village was also in existence when the State of Mizoram was carved out of the State of Assam initially as Union Territory on 21.01.1972. The Union Territory administration extended all facilities to the villagers and they were issued Periodic Patta/Garden Pass on 21.02.1977 under the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act of 1963. After Mizoram became a full-fledged State in 20.02.1987, the State Government continued to extend facilities, such as the benefits under the New Land Use Policy since 1991, establishing a school since 2004, providing electricity connection since 2012, Job Cards under NREGS, Voter List, Birth Certificate and Scheduled Tribe Certificate as residents of the Village. After Mizoram became a full-fledged State in 20.02.1987, the State Government continued to extend facilities, such as the benefits under the New Land Use Policy since 1991, establishing a school since 2004, providing electricity connection since 2012, Job Cards under NREGS, Voter List, Birth Certificate and Scheduled Tribe Certificate as residents of the Village. Therefore, the opinion of the respondent No. 1 about the settlement site being illegal is false and only a distortion of material facts. 7. The petitioner further contends that the allegation in the eviction notice that the settlement at the Village having constantly invited law and order problems and also creating administration and developmental problems is without any basis. In fact, it is the villagers who are the victims of law & order problems created by non-state actors, like the MSU and that also with the knowledge of the respondent authorities. 8. The petitioner further contends that the impugned eviction notice dated 28.05.2019 issued by the respondent No. 1 is in clear violation of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Lalchawivela Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors, WP(C) No. 87/2012 on 26.04.2013, wherein, it was categorically held that the opinion for eviction has to be recorded in the form of a satisfaction note, which will reflect or indicate the opinion of the Government and which will prevent the possibility of any arbitrary or high-handed action. Therefore, the opinion formed in the impugned eviction notice is based on insufficient evidence, arbitrary and high-handedness by the State itself since the State had recognized the Village and provided facilities in earlier times as per the available official records from 1951 Census. The State could not have issued the impugned notice after its failure to take action against the non-State actors who took law into their own hands and after its failure to undertake development activities including restoration of Tuichawngchhuah Primary School, which was burned down by the MSU cadres during the stay granted by this Court. The petitioner contends that the eviction notice dated 28.05.2019 violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d)(e) & (g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India and his counsel thus sums up the contention of the petitioner as follows:- (i) The V.C Act cannot be applied retroactively/retrospectively. (ii) The impugned notice having been issued under the repealed provision of the V.C Act is also not applicable to the Village. (ii) The impugned notice having been issued under the repealed provision of the V.C Act is also not applicable to the Village. (iii) The existence of the Village is not in contravention of any law, including the V.C Act. (iv) Section 26(3) of the V.C Act has been invoked without any lawful and sustainable reasons. (v) The V.C Act does not render the Village to be an illegal settlement only because of non-recognition of the same by the State Government. (vi) The impugned eviction notice is liable to be set aside for being issued maliciously and malafidely. 9. Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel also submits that the two (2) affidavits filed by the State respondents do not clarify as to whether the Village is in 1951 Census or not. In fact, the village existed as per 1951 and 2011 Census. Further, Section 26(2)(a) of the V.C Act has already been amended and therefore, the same would not apply for evicting the settlers of the Village. Likewise, Section 26(1)(2)(3) of the V.C Act as amended is not applicable to the petitioner since the Village was in existence since 1951. The eviction notice is malicious and with malafide intention as it can be seen that a copy of the same has been marked to the MSU. The learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the following authorities:- (i) Judgment & Order dated 26.04.2013 in WP(C) No. 87/2012 (Lalchawivela Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors.) (ii) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 1207/1978, Manu/SC/0433/1979. (iii) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147. (iv) Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 437 . (v) Kangana Ranaut Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. Manu/MH/1958/2020; 2021 (1) ABR 429. (vi) Rajneesh Khajuria Vs. Wockhardt Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 3 SCC 86 . (vii) Rameshwar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 215 . (viii) Judgment dated 08.04.2020 of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020, A/o SLP(C) No. 35373 of 2013 (Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.) (ix) Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd Vs. RDS Projects Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 524 . (x) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 407 . Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.) (ix) Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd Vs. RDS Projects Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 524 . (x) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 407 . (xi) State of A.P & Ors. Vs. Govardhanlal Pitti, (2003) 4 SCC 739 (xii) State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. P.P. Sharma & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222. (xiii) Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2015) 5 SCC 1 . (xiv) Judgment dated 17.06.2021 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2217-2218 of 2021 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Raj Grow Impex LLP & Ors.) Manu/SC/0369/2021. 10. Appearing for the State respondents Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General raises preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner alone cannot raise the grievance of each and every member of the inhabitants of the Village since the instant writ petition is not a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). He submits that according to the petitioner himself, there are 49 families residing in the Village and therefore, without authorization the petitioner alone cannot file the instant writ petition on behalf of all the other residents. 11. The learned State Counsel submits that the V.C Act was enacted empowering the State Government to regulate proper, effective and efficient human settlement within the State. He submits that Section 26(2) prohibits the establishment of any settlement site except in accordance to the procedure under Section 26(1) and as such, any human settlement not established in terms of the Act is deemed to be illegal settlement. 12. The learned State Counsel submits that settlements duly established in accordance with law are recorded with the recognition of the State Government and notified officially. A recognized settlement is then granted the status of a village and authorized to have a Village Council. The Village Council then forms an Executive Body, headed by a President for administering its own local affairs. The term ‘Karbari’ is the petitioner’s own invention and not recognized by law. 13. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 30.10.2019, the learned State Counsel submits that there is no proof that the Village had been recognized as a human settlement during the pre-independent period as claimed by the petitioner. The term ‘Karbari’ is the petitioner’s own invention and not recognized by law. 13. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 30.10.2019, the learned State Counsel submits that there is no proof that the Village had been recognized as a human settlement during the pre-independent period as claimed by the petitioner. Assuming that there was a settlement for the sake of argument without admitting to the same, it would only be a temporary farming settlement or a cluster of temporary jhuming community and not recognized as permanent human settlement under the relevant law. This is proved from the alleged issuance of Periodic Patta in respect of Tuichawngchhuah area since Periodic Pattas are issued as temporary Garden Pass and not meant for human settlement. The learned State Counsel submits that the State of Mizoram passed through several transition in the past i.e., from the status of a District Council in the year 1952 to a Union Territory in 1972 and thereafter, to a full-fledged State in the year 1986. During these periods, all villages within Mizoram were properly listed, governed and administered in accordance with the V.C Act. Had the settlement been accepted as a recognized human settlement, it would find place in the list of villages, published and maintained by the erstwhile District Council or Union Territory and later, the State Government under the relevant Act. However, the same is not the case and therefore, the contention of the petitioner about the existence of a settlement even at the time of 1951 Census cannot be accepted. 14. The State Counsel further submits that the petitioner and other perpetrators used to illegally set up settlement here and there in the middle of the jungle, which remain undetected for a long period of time. When the same is detected, the State authorities used to take proper legal action for closure of such illegal settlements and that there is no record of Tuichawngchhuah as a village under the list of villages maintained by the Local Administration Department till date. In fact, the Voters I.D Card, Job Card or Electric connection annexed by the petitioner pertains to Tuichawng village, which is a completely a different village and also listed as a recognized village. In order to regulate and govern the establishment of settlement sites, the V.C Act was enacted. In fact, the Voters I.D Card, Job Card or Electric connection annexed by the petitioner pertains to Tuichawng village, which is a completely a different village and also listed as a recognized village. In order to regulate and govern the establishment of settlement sites, the V.C Act was enacted. However, the petitioner and others on their own had illegally set up settlement at Tuichawngchhuah, which remained undetected for several years. Upon detecting the illegal settlement, the Government contemplated legal cause of action, which however failed due to non-conformity of law and due to the intervention by the Court. The first attempt was initiated by District Level Meeting of Lunglei District on 15.12.2015 and pursuant to which, the eviction order dated 17.12.2015 came to be issued, which however was stayed by the High Court vide order dated 08.01.2016 in WP(C) No. 21/2017. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2018, wherein, the High Court while interfering with the eviction notice also observed that the State respondents were not precluded from taking a decision to evict the settlers from Tuichawngchhuah in terms of the provisions of the V.C Act. Accordingly, the State respondents have taken a decision to the effect that the settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was required to be closed in view of the various difficulties it created and also in view of the welfare of the settlers. As such, the order dated 28.05.2019 asking the settlers to evict the settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was issued by the State respondents in terms of the relevant provisions of the V.C Act. As such, the same may not be interfered with by this Court. 15. The learned State Counsel further submits that it is true that a group of miscreants allegedly burned down one (1) building at Tuichawngchhuah on 26.02.2016. This incident compelled the District Administration authority to post a group of armed police personnel in order to prevent any on toward incident thereafter. 16. The learned State Counsel further submits that the writ petition has become infructuous, inasmuch as, all the unauthorized settlers at Tuichawngchhuah settlement, including the petitioner have already vacated the said settlement and that they are now duly settled at Tuichawng village. The Village has therefore been declared as a deserted village under Section 26 (4) of the V.C Act vide Notification dated 17.02.2020. The Village has therefore been declared as a deserted village under Section 26 (4) of the V.C Act vide Notification dated 17.02.2020. The learned State Counsel also submits that certain pockets of unauthorized settlement have been found in different parts of the State and the State Government in the Local Administration Department vide Notification dated 12.03.2019 constituted a State Level Screening Committee for the eviction or abolition of an unauthorized settlement. The State Government vide Corrigendum dated 22.03.2019 made rectifications in the list of members constituted State Level Screening Committee. The said Committee is also responsible for devising a suitable mechanism for eviction or abolition of any unauthorized settlement. Likewise, a District Level Committee has also been formed for each district in the State. A meeting of the Lunglei District Screening Committee on unauthorized settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was held on 21.03.2019 wherein, it was held that the settlement should be immediately relocated to suitable location following due process of law. The meeting also decided to refer the matter to the State Level Screening Committee for formation of an opinion that a situation had arisen requiring closure of a settlement and to issue eviction notice as per Section 26 of the V.C Act. Pursuant thereto, a joint meeting of the Village Councils and NGOs of both Tuichawng and Belpei (Matrisona) villages was organized at Tuichawngchhuah settlement itself on 24.03.2019 to decide the issue pertaining to relocation of Tuichawngchhuah settlers. The meeting amongst others came up with a decision to get the settlers at Tuichawngchhuah relocated at Tuichawng village. Accordingly, the State Government in the Local Administration Department issued the order dated 28.05.2019 asking the settlers to evict the settlement within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order and failing which, fine would be imposed as per the V.C Act. In compliance of the said Notification, the settlers at Tuichawngchhuah have vacated the settlement. 17. The State Counsel finally by referring to the affidavit filed by the State respondents on 19.06.2020, submits that the Verification Report by the Local Administration Department has established the fact that the settlement at Tuichawngchhuah village created enormous social economic hardships for the settlers besides inviting law and order problems. Lack of basic healthcare facilities in particular is a matter of great concern for the State Government and the sign of malnutrition is also visible amongst children. Lack of basic healthcare facilities in particular is a matter of great concern for the State Government and the sign of malnutrition is also visible amongst children. In such scenario, the State Government is duty bound under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to protect the life of its citizens by relocating them to a village where facilities for health and education are available. The learned State Counsel submits that in issuing the impugned order dated 28.05.2019, the State respondents have not violated any provisions of the V.C Act. There is also no malice or malafide intention in issuing the said impugned order. Under the circumstance, the writ petition may be dismissed. In support of his submissions, the learned State Counsel relies upon the case of M/S. Muttha Associates & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 304 . 18. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have also perused the materials available on record. 19. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the V.C Act cannot be applied retroactively/retrospectively and that the impugned notice having been issued under the repealed provision of the V.C Act, the same is also not applicable to the Village. As already stated herein above, this is the second time the writ petitioner is before this Court. In the earlier writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 21/2017, the petitioner challenged the eviction order dated 17.12.2015 by which the settlement at the Village was declared illegal and unauthorized and accordingly, its inhabitants were asked to vacate the place immediately. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment & order dated 28.04.2018 by setting aside the impugned eviction order dated 17.12.2015 with a finding that the mandate of Section 26 of the V.C Act was not followed before the issuance of the impugned eviction order. Further, it was also observed that the respondents were not precluded from taking a fresh decision in strict conformity with the provisions of the V.C Act. Against the said judgment and order, the petitioner admittedly has not filed an appeal and therefore, it has attained finality. Therefore, it will not be open for the petitioner to now question the applicability of the VC Act at this stage. Against the said judgment and order, the petitioner admittedly has not filed an appeal and therefore, it has attained finality. Therefore, it will not be open for the petitioner to now question the applicability of the VC Act at this stage. It is also a settled position of law that misquoting of the provisions of law does not render the action illegal as long as the power exists. Therefore, by applying this principle, the challenge made by the petitioner to the impugned notice is found to be not sustainable. 20. Now coming to the next contention of the petitioner that the existence of the Village is not in contravention of any law, including the V.C Act and that Section 26(3) of the V.C Act was invoked without any lawful and sustainable reasons. Further, the V.C Act does not render the Village to be an illegal settlement only because of non-recognition of the same by the State Government. According to the State respondents, the settlement at the Village was at best for farming purposes and cannot be recognized as permanent human settlement. This is only proved from the issuance of Periodic Patta in respect of Tuichawngchhuah area as claimed by the petitioner himself. Periodic Pattas are issued as temporary Garden Pass and not meant for human settlement. As submitted by the learned State Counsel, the State of Mizoram passed through several transition in the past i.e., from the status of a District Council in the year 1952 to a Union Territory in 1972 and thereafter, to a full-fledged State in the year 1986. During these periods, all villages within Mizoram were properly listed, governed and administered in accordance with the V.C Act. Had the settlement been accepted as a recognized human settlement, it would find place in the list of villages, published and maintained by the erstwhile District Council or Union Territory and later, the State Government under the relevant Act. However, the same is not the case and therefore, the contention of the petitioner about the existence of a settlement even at the time of 1951 Census cannot be the basis to regularize their stay in the settlement. 21. According to the State respondents, the petitioner and other perpetrators used to illegally set up settlement here and there in the middle of the jungle, which remain undetected for a long period of time. 21. According to the State respondents, the petitioner and other perpetrators used to illegally set up settlement here and there in the middle of the jungle, which remain undetected for a long period of time. When the same is detected, the State authorities used to take proper legal action for closure of such illegal settlements and that there is no record of Tuichawngchhuah as a village under the list of villages maintained by the Local Administration Department till date. In fact, the Voters I.D Card, Job Card or Electric connection annexed by the petitioner pertains to Tuichawng village, which is a completely a different village and also listed as a recognized village. In order to regulate and govern the establishment of settlement site, the V.C Act was enacted. However, the petitioner and others on their own had illegally set up settlement at Tuichawngchhuah, which remained undetected for several years. Upon detecting the illegal settlement, the Government contemplated legal cause of action, which however failed due to non-conformity of law and due to the intervention by the Court. The first attempt was decided by District Level Meeting of Lunglei District on 15.12.2015 and pursuant to which, the eviction order dated 17.12.2015 came to be issued, which however was stayed by the High Court vide order dated 08.01.2016 in WP(C) No. 21/2017. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2018, wherein, the High Court while interfering with the eviction notice also observed that the State respondents were not precluded from taking a decision to evict the settlers from Tuichawngchhuah in terms of the provisions of the V.C Act. Accordingly, the State respondents have taken a decision to the effect that the settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was required to be closed in view of the various difficulties it created and also in view of the welfare of the settlers. As such, the order dated 28.05.2019 asking the settlers to vacate the settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was issued by the State respondents only in terms of the relevant provisions of the V.C Act. 22. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned eviction notice is liable to be set aside for being issued maliciously and mala fidely. 22. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned eviction notice is liable to be set aside for being issued maliciously and mala fidely. However, the fact remains that not only has the plea of mala fide to be specifically pleaded but the person against whom such allegation is made has to be impleaded and which, in the present case has not been done. In the case of State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. (1986)4 SCC 566 , the Apex Court in the given facts of that case held that there must be specific pleadings regarding mala fides on the basis of which court can arrive at its conclusion. Mere use of words such as ‘mala fide’, ‘corruption’ and ‘corrupt practice’ is not enough. It is necessary to give full particulars of such allegations and to set out the material facts specifying the particular person against whom such allegations are made so that he may have an opportunity of controverting such allegations. In absence of such allegations in the pleadings, Court cannot make any observations in regard to mala fides. Similar, enunciation was also made by the Apex Court in the case of P.P. Sharma & Anr. (Supra) which in fact is the authority cited by the petitioner’s counsel. The above ratio is therefore found to squarely cover the present case and against the petitioner. 23. Further, it may be noticed that the facts involved in the case of Lalchawivela & Ors. (Supra) which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not similar to the present case. Challenge made in that case was to the Notification dated 31.10.2012 by which all the residents were directed to leave Saikhumphai on or before November, 2012 and declaring that Saikhumphai shall be a vacant and deserted place from 01.12.2012. A coordinate Bench of this Court in disposing of the writ petition held that the relevant provisions of the VC Act was not adhered to before issuance of the impugned Notification and therefore, the same was set aside. However, in the present case, a meeting of the Lunglei District Screening Committee on unauthorized settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was held on 21.03.2019 wherein, it was held that the settlement should be immediately relocated to suitable location following due process of law. However, in the present case, a meeting of the Lunglei District Screening Committee on unauthorized settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was held on 21.03.2019 wherein, it was held that the settlement should be immediately relocated to suitable location following due process of law. The meeting also decided to refer the matter to the State Level Screening Committee for formation of an opinion that a situation has arisen requiring closure of a settlement and to issue eviction notice as per Section 26 of the V.C Act. Pursuant thereto, a joint meeting of the Village Councils and NGOs of both Tuichawng and Belpei (Matrisona) villages was organized at Tuichawngchhuah settlement itself to decide the issue pertaining to relocation of Tuichawngchhuah settlers. The meeting amongst others came up with a decision to get the settlers at Tuichawngchhuah relocated at Tuichawng village. Accordingly, the State Government in the Local Administration Department issued the order dated 28.05.2019 asking the settlers to evict the settlement within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order and failing which, fine would be imposed as per the V.C Act. Therefore, the case of Lalchawivela & Ors. (Supra) is distinguishable and found to be not applicable to the present case. For the same reason, the case of Gurdial Singh & Ors. (Supra) wherein it was held that fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide is also found to be not applicable. The case of Gurdial Singh & Ors. (Supra) was also quoted and relied upon in the case of Rameshwar & Ors. (Supra) and therefore, the latter will also not apply to the present case. 24. In the case of Goverdhanlal Pitti, the Apex Court held that the legal meaning of malice is “ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action.” This is sometimes described as “malice in fact.” “Legal malice” or “malice in law” means “something done without lawful excuse.” In other words it is an act done wrongfully and willfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others. In the present case, as already stated herein above, a meeting of the Lunglei District Screening Committee on unauthorized settlement at Tuichawngchhuah was held on 21.03.2019 wherein, it was held that the settlement should be immediately relocated to suitable location following due process of law. The meeting also decided to refer the matter to the State Level Screening Committee for formation of an opinion that a situation has arisen requiring closure of a settlement and to issue eviction notice as per Section 26 of the V.C Act. Pursuant thereto, a joint meeting of the Village Councils and NGOs of both Tuichawng and Belpei (Matrisona) villages was organized at Tuichawngchhuah settlement itself to decide the issue pertaining to relocation of Tuichawngchhuah settlers. The meeting amongst others came up with a decision to get the settlers at Tuichawngchhuah relocated at Tuichawng village. Accordingly, the State Government in the Local Administration Department issued the order dated 28.05.2019 asking the settlers to evict the settlement within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order and failing which, fine would be imposed as per the V.C Act. Therefore, besides this, in view of the findings arrived at in paragraph Nos.19 to 22 herein above, which is not being repeated only for the sake of brevity, neither “malice in fact” nor “malice in law” are found to be attracted and therefore, the ratio laid down is found to be not applicable to the present case. Similarly, in the case of Kalbharati Advertising (Supra), Rajneesh Khajuria (Supra), Kangana Ranaut (Supra), Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (Supra), Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. (Supra) and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (Supra) wherein, the principle or ratio laid down in Goverdhanlal Pitti (Supra) on “Legal malice” or “malice in law” has been referred to, relied upon or enunciated, they are also not found to be applicable to the case at hand. 25. Another aspect of the matter which has drawn the attention of this court is that the petitioner claims to represent the interest of 49 (forty-nine) other similarly situated families said to be residing at Tuichawngchhuah. However, the fact remains that there are no documents annexed to the writ petition which shows that the petitioner is authorised to represent the 49 families. However, the fact remains that there are no documents annexed to the writ petition which shows that the petitioner is authorised to represent the 49 families. Also the names and details of the 49 families are not to be seen in the pleadings of the writ petitioner as well. Admittedly, this writ petition has not been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and under such circumstance, the writ petition at best will have to be in respect of the petitioner alone and no one else. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite the interim order passed by this court, the respondents have proceeded to issue a notification on 17.02.2020 declaring the settlement at Tuichawngchhuah to be deserted. It may be seen that the order of status quo was passed on 16.08.2019 after the court noticed that there was no pleading in the writ petition that the petitioner has left or has not left the settlement. As of now, it is the case of the respondents that everyone has left the settlement and the same is also not disputed by the petitioner. Had there been a deliberate breach of the order of status quo, the petitioner or whomsoever is concerned would not have or could not have kept silent. Be that as it may, as this has been raised only at the stage of final hearing and in view of the finding arrived at as set out in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the issue need not detain this court. 27. Thus upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I do not find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the official respondents are directed to ensure that the settlers who have been asked to move out from Tuichawngchhuah are properly and adequately rehabilitated. 28. The accompanying Interlocutory Application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed. No cost.