UNION OF INDIA Vs. V L RAWNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has arisen from judgment and order dated 28. 09. 2005 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Aizawl, Mizoram in RFA No. 19 of 2004 dismissing the appeal of the Union of India and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District on 10. 11. 2003 in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1999.

(2.) THE material facts necessary for disposal of this second appeal by the Union of India and others against concurrent findings of the Courts below should be noticed at the outset. The first three respondents/plaintiffs are husband, wife and their daughter who filed the Civil Suit No. 2 of 1999 against the Union of India and three other official defendants. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Mura (L ). The land in dispute measuring 5. 5 acres was covered by permit No. 570/75 issued under Section 3 of Mizoram (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963. Within the said area there was a fishpond measuring 1/2 bigha. In 1982 an agreement was entered into between Mura (L) and the BRTF, an organization under the Union of India, for occupation of the land by the BRTF on one time payment of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) as rent for a period of 10 (ten) years. The period ended 1992. During this period Mura (L) died survived by his son, the first respondent. In 1992 itself, the son of Mural (L) obtained land settlement certificate No. 126 of 1992 covering the entire area. But the appellant herein neither vacated the said land nor agreed to pay any rent for their occupation after the period of ten years. The fishpond, which as per the agreement was to be maintained by the appellant, was virtually filled up and the fish were appropriated or damaged. When approached, the appellants allegedly denied the title of the plaintiffs, which compelled them to file the suit seeking a direction for payment of the rent from 1992 as may be assessed by the District Collector, Aizawl, the fourth respondent herein. Further prayer was for compensation against damage of the fishpond to be assessed by the said collector.

(3.) THE suit was decreed on the basis of the materials placed on record by the parties directing that the rent to be paid by the appellants herein from 1992 shall be assessed by the District Collector, Aizawl. Further direction has also been given to assess compensation for the damage of the fishpond.