UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALHLIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned CGC appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 1. None appears for the State respondents.

(2.) . This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 28.12.2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Aizawl in RFA No. 2 of 2002, whereby the learned appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree, dated 12th April, 2002, passed by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1989. The private respondent No.1 as plaintiff instituted the Title Suit No. 2 of 1989 seeking a decree for setting aside the Land permit issued to the BRTF and also for declaration that he has the right title and interest in respect of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 46 of 1985 and LSC No. KLB 48 of 1985. The plaintiff also claimed for rent with interest thereon for occupation of the plaintiff's land by the Border Road Task Force (for short 'BRTF'). The plaintiff's case, in brief is that in the year 1963, he had purchased a plot of land measuring about 1 bigha at Kolasib Hmar Veng from Shri R. Thansanga (L) with fruit bearing trees thereon and in respect of the said land he obtained LSC No. KLB 48 of 1985. According to plaintiff, he was also allotted another plot of land by the Mizo District Council vide House Pass No. 2 of 1988 at Kolasib and he purchased another adjacent plot of land vide House Pass No. 83 of 1964 and the land covered by the House Pass No. 2 of 1966 and House Pass No. 83 of 1964 were converted into LSC No. KLB 46 of 1985 in his favour. As pleaded by the plaintiff, in the month of August, 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied the plaintiff's said land, destroyed the trees thereon and, since then, they have been staying therein, depriving the plaintiff from enjoying the land aforesaid. Therefore, aggrieved by the said occupation, the plaintiff instituted the Title Suit. The plaintiff's suit was contested by the Union of India and the State by filing separate written statements. The Union of India denied the claims made by the plaintiff and stated that they were occupying the land after obtaining valid permit from the Government of Mizoram and that they are not liable to pay any rent to the plaintiff. Upon the pleading of both the parties, the following issues were framed : -

(3.) . The plaintiff examined himself as witness and proved certain documents. The Union of India also examined one witness. The learned trial judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the plaintiff, as appellant, preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial), as he then was. The First Appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge and decreed the plaintiff's suit directing payment of rent @Rs. 740 per month, payable by the respondent Nos. 1 -6 w.e.f. 1.8.1966 to 31.12.1989 with interest thereon. It was also provided that rent at the said rate should be paid from 1.1.1990 by the Government of Mizoram till 31.5.2002 and thereafter the rent should be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 -6 w.e.f. 1.6.2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of reversal, the Union of India and the State Government filed two second appeals before the High Court and both the appeals were disposed of by the common judgment and order, dated 18.01.2006 passed in RSA No. 2/2005 and RSA No. 7/2003, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, dated 4.12.2002, passed in RFA No. 2/2002 and the matter was remanded to first appellant Court for deciding the appeal fresh on the basis of the evidence on record after recording findings on the controversies between the parties in accordance with law. After receipt of the said appeal, on remand, the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl passed the impugned judgment and order, dated 28.12.2010, setting aside the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2002 passed by the learned trial judge in T.S. No. 2 of 1989 and decreed the suit with the following directions : -