SH. LALZARLIANA SAILO, S/O LALLUAIA SAILO (L) R/O CHANDMARI, AIZAWL Vs. SHRI ZANENGA NOW DEAD AND SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON, THANGDINGLIANA, CHANDMARI, AIZAWL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Lalsawirema, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 -6 and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7. As agreed to by both the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, this appeal can be disposed of at this stage. The facts and circumstances of the case leading to the filing of this appear are that in the year 1952, the Stall Pass No. 25/5 of 1952 measuring 10'x8' was issued to the Respondent No. 7/plaintiff and that Miscellaneous Pass No. 25 of 1958 was also issued to the Respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 in the year 1958. On 24.2.1972, the Misc. Pass No. 25 of 1958 issued to the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 was converted/superceded by Misc. Pass No. 19 of 1972 by the Mizo District Council. In the year 1973, the plaintiff/respondent No. 7 constructed a building thereon. The Misc. Pass No. 19 of 1972 issued to the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 was again converted/superseded to LSC No. 703 of 1980. In the year 1983, the respondent No. 1 finished construction of his building and thereupon the respondent No. 7/plaintiff in August, 1983 had complained to the Revenue Department stating that building of respondent No. 1 had encroached upon his land. On 15.12.1983 the plaintiff got the area of his Pass changed from 10'x8' into 20.8'x10' i.e. after the respondent No. 1 had finished construction of his building. In the year 1996, verification report was made by the Revenue Department stating that the building of defendant No. 1 had encroached upon the land of the plaintiff by 21/2feet. In the year 1998, the Revenue Department ordered the defendant No. 1 to dismantle 2 1/2 feet of his building. On 1.8.2000, the Revenue Department ordered another verification of the disputed lands as the Defendant No. 1 had made a complaint that the Surveyor who made the report was biased in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 7. This prompted the respondent No. 7/plaintiff to file Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2003. In the year, 2004, the appellant bought the land and building covered by LSC No. 703 of 1980 from the respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1. On 7.7.2004, the Land Revenue and Settlement Department mutated the LSC No. 703 of 1980 in the name of the appellant. On 31.8.2006, the plaintiff/respondent No. 7 expired. In the year 2010, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl passed the Judgment and Decree dated 19.4.2010 in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2003 where after Execution Case No. 10 of 2010 was filed by the an order in Execution Case No. 10 of 2010 directing the appellant to dismantle 2 1/2 feet long slab of concrete whereupon a part of the 2 1/2 feet long concrete slab was demolished, which induced the appellant to file the instant appeal.

(2.) AT the outset, the learned senior counsel for the appellant makes a statement that in view of the agreement arrived at between the respondent No. 7 and the appellant, this appeal does not survive for consideration and both the parties would be satisfied if the appeal is disposed of by directing the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to conduct site verification of the boundary between the appellant and the respondent No. 7 in accordance with the passes issued to them respectively by the Revenue authorities on the basis of the land record maintained by them. He further states that both parties would abide by the verification report of the revenue authorities based on the result of such boundary verification. The statement of the learned senior counsel is not disputed by Mr.L.H.Lianhrima, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 as well as the learned State counsel. In the light of the agreement arrived at between the parties as indicated in the foregoing, this appeal stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to undertake the exercise of site boundary verification as indicated earlier in the presence of both the parties so that the exact boundary of the lands of the parties in determined once and for all within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that any determination of the boundary made by the respondent No. 3 & 4 based on such exercise shall be binding upon by the parties. Consequently the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.4.2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2003 is set aside. No costs. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith.