STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. VANTHANGLIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate for the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (State defendants) and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli for the respondent No.1/plaintiff (plaintiff). None appears for the respondent Nos.2 to 38/defendant Nos.5 to 41 (private defendants) despite notice.

(2.) This is an appeal filed by the State defendants against the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2008 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Title Suit No.2 of 1995, whereby the Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the impugned Judgment and Order is abstracted below-

(3.) Brief facts of the case as projected by the plaintiff is that he purchased a piece of land measuring an area of 14 bighas covered by Pass No. 8 of 1964 from one Mr. Ralliantawna in the year 1964. When he purchased the said land, there were a number of fruit bearing trees within the said land and that he himself planted a number of such trees. In the year 1965, he was issued permit No.192 of 1965 by the erstwhile District Council which superseded the earlier Pass No.8 of 1964. In the year 1966, there was disturbance in Mizoram and sometime in the year 1967 to 1968, the Government of Assam with the help of Security Forces grouped together the people of different villages within the Sairang Village. In doing so, the defendant Nos.5 to 7, 9 to 16, 18 to 20, 22 to 26, 28 to 32, 34 to 36 and 38 to 39 were allowed to stay in the land of the plaintiff without obtaining his consent and permission. The said defendants constructed their respective houses and began to live in the plaintiff's land without paying any rent. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 15, 26, 32, 36, 30 and 34 also illegally disposed of the land to the defendant Nos. 8, 21, 27, 33, 37, 40 and 41 respectively. The plaintiff contends that Permit No.192 of 1965 is a permanent one and the Government if it so requires can acquire the land for public purposes on payment of reasonable compensation as per the conditions mentioned in the permit itself. According to the plaintiff, although grouping was done during the time when Mizoram was only a district of Assam but on attaining Statehood, the assets and liabilities have shifted to the State of Mizoram and therefore, the State defendants will be liable to pay compensation and do the needful to give the plaintiff vacant possession of his land. The plaintiff also quantified the amount of compensation due to him towards the damages caused to the fruit bearing trees in his land at Rs.2,04,700/-.