TLANGDUHI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Without going into the details of the fact of the case, it may be stated that there was a dispute over the purchase, possession, issuance of LSC and also boundary of the land amongst the husband of the present appellant (since deceased) and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. A spot verification was made on 20.3.1985 and on the basis of the spot verification report, an executive order was passed on 8.4.1985 by the Director, Land Revenue and Settlement, Aizawl (respondent No. 3), the operative portion of which reads as under:

(2.) It is not reflected in the said order as to whether the present appellant was given notice and opportunity of hearing. However, the present appellant preferred an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 13.9.1985, which was registered as CA 29 of 1985. By a judgment dated 19.6.1986, the learned lower appellate court upheld the same. The text of the judgment dated 19.6.1986 is reproduced below:

(3.) The entire matter took different turn when the present appellant filed a declaratory suit before the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl Distirct, Aizawl, which was registered as D.S. No. 10 of 2002 for declaring the order passed by the defendant No. 3 (present respondent No. 3), Director of Land Revenue and Settlement on 8.4 1985 as valid and be implemented. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 and 6 filed written statements contending, inter alia, that the declaratory suit is barred by the principle of res judicata inasmuch as after the executive order dated 8.4.1985 passed by the respondent-director, the Title Suit filed by the respondent No. 5 in respect of the same subject matter against the plaintiff's husband who was alive at that time and the said Title Suit was decided by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class of Subordinate District Council Court in favour of plaintiff (respondent No. 5 in the present case) after arriving at a conclusion that he (respondent No. 5) have been enjoying peaceful possession of his plot of land undisturbed by his neighbour Zahmingthanga (husband of the present appellant) for more than 20 years.