STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. SANGLAWMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 is against the judgment and decree dated 17th March 2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 22/2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, decreeing, the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for Rs. 7,03,265 (Rupees seven lakh three thousand two hundred and sixty-five) only with interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum with effect from 29th August, 2001 as compensation for demolition of the Plaintiffs building that was standing on the land covered by LSC No. 3142/1986. The Respondent-herein, as Plaintiff had instituted the said suit praying for a decree declaring that Defendants executed an agreement with him for payment of compensation for demolition of an RCC building standing over the land in LSC No. 3142/1986 that belonged to him and for passing a decree for Rs. 7,03,265 (Rupees seven lakh three thousand two hundred and sixty-five) with interest as compensation for the demolition carried out by the Defendants, contending inter alia that due to the landslide occurred in the year 1998 the link road between, the Aizawl City and Central Workshop was totally blocked and damaged, resulting in damage of his own residential building (RCC structure) partly and while he was about to repair the building, the Defendants, with a view to restore the said link road had asked the Plaintiff to vacate his building for clearance of the said link road as demolition of said building was required. It has also been pleaded in the plaint that the said building of the Plaintiff was eventually demolished by the Defendants and compensation therefor was assessed as Rs. 7,03,265, which is evident from the communication dated 29th August, 2001 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD, IWT Sub-Division, Aizawl. According to the Plaintiff, despite such assessment and assurance given, since the compensation had not been paid, he was left with no alternative but to file the suit for recovery of the said amount, apart from the value of the land, the possession of which was taken by the Defendants for the purpose of clearance of the link road.

(2.) The Defendants/Appellants, on receipt of summons, entered appearance and filed their joint written statement denying the claim of the Plaintiff and contending that the building of the Plaintiff had never been demolished by them and that the same was in fact partly damaged due to the heavy landslide in the year 1998, rendering the said building unfit for dwelling purpose for which the Plaintiff had himself demolished the structure. The plea of maintainability of the suit for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, apart from the plea of limitation was agitated by the Defendants in their said joint written statement.

(3.) The learned trial court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for determination: