LAL CHAWIMAWIA Vs. STATE OF MLZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Upon hearing Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners in 12 nos. and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents I hereby propose to dispose of this writ petition with the following short judgment and order.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioners made a prayer for a direction to the respondents for payment of compensation for the properties illegally damaged during the construction of the KNV road, coupled with a prayer for further direction to the respondent No. 5 namely the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl District to ensure and make proper assessment of compensation payable to the Petitioners for such damage and for acquisition of the lands belonging to them by contending Inter alia, that while constructing the said KNV through the Khawlailung village, the respondents/authority concerned had caused damage to the properties namely house sites, houses therein, standing crops etc. belonging to these petitioners and as a result of which the legitimate right of the petitioners over their personal properties have been deprived of by the action of concerned authorities. The petitioners also asserted about the damage caused to their properties and also about the approximate amount of compensation payable to them by the competent authorities namely the present respondents by sending the notice as required under Section 80 CPC as reflected and seen in the document marked as Annexure-II to the writ petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is contested and resisted by the respondents by filing counter affidavit and contended inter aha, that the petitioners ought to have approached the competent civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter for the said reliefs so far claimed by them and not before this court as the matter can be adjudicated properly by the competent civil court and apart from it, the matter involves complicated and disputed questions of facts. This stand or plea is supported by Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents at the time of hearing. Mr. Sailo also argued that the petitioners had already served and issued notice as required under Section 80 CPC and Instead of filing an appropriate civil suit before the competent civil court, they approached this court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents for payment of compensation for the damage caused to their respective properties and for further direction to the respondent No. 5 for appropriate assessment of the damage caused to them and make payment of compensation for it which cannot be entertained by this court while exercising the extra ordinary power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Sailo also contended that the statements and the pleas of the State respondents to the effect that, the Village Council authorities make a decision not to claim any compensation against the damages mat might cause to the individual properties due to the road construction of the said road and decision of the said Village Council was supported by the resolution passed in a public meeting convened by the local authorities as highlighted in para- 6 of the counter affidavit which is not controverted or denied by the-writ petitioners and apart from it, the writ petitioners also did not file any rejoinder affidavit. However, Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners made a reply to the contention so far advanced by Mr. Sailo by contending mat the petitioners had never given consent for construction of the said road and petitioners did not participate in the said public meeting. Be that as it may, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record I am of the view that this matter involves very complex and disputed questions of facts and as such it requires minute examination of it by a competent civil court. It is well settled that generally and ordinarily the High Court while exercising its extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not go into the merit of the case or cases which involves complicated and disputed facts. At this stage a reference can be made to the decision of Apex Court rendered in the case of Babubhal Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others in which the Apex Court held that: "When the petition raises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view mat the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may de- cline to try a petition." In the instant case also, the writ petitioners after serving the notice as required under Section 80 CPC they were quite aware that they were to file 3 suit before the competent civil. court. I have perused the said notice, and it is self-explanatory. At this stage, this court is taking care of the delay to be caused while filing a suit by the petitioners before the competent civil court in the matter even if the court permits the petitioners to file a suit for the said reliefs sought for by them in this writ petition. At the time of hearing Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Law of Limitation shall not be applicable and will not come on the way of the petitioners in the instant case. I cannot agree with the submissions so far advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners on this issue. It may be true that by virtue of the related notification issued by the Governor of Assam under Para- 12 of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India with effect from 1.1.1964 about the non-applicability of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 to all the tribal areas including the erstwhile Mizo District (not Mizoram); there is no specific notification issued by the Government of Mizoram regarding the non application of Law of Limitation in a suit or suits between the resident-tribal and non tribal. In the instant case, the suit is to be filed by the petitioners who are tribals of the State of Mizoram against the State machinery i.e. the present respond- ents and as such, in my considered view, the Law of Limitation shall be applicable in such suit/case.