The main legal point established in the judgment is that a court's jurisdiction to entertain a dispute is limited when the same dispute has already been settled by a competent authority, and the subsequent court's order may be deemed a nullity.

Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. Both Mr. B Lalramenga, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 have been heard at length. None appears for the respondent No. 2 despite proper service of notice upon him. In this civil revision, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the judgment and order dated 07.02.2010 passed by the Village Court of Sialsuk, Mizoram holding that the disputed land belongs to respondent No. 2 from whom the respondent No. 1 alleged to have purchased the same. The case of the petitioner is that her grandfather was the original owner and became the settlement holder of the land covered by Certificate of Agricultural Land Settlement (LSC) bearing No. 105301/10/318 of 2009 measuring an area of 17.10 bighas or 22,883.36 sqm located at Sialsuk ram, Khiangthiang mual, which is within the village of Sialsuk ram in the Aizawl District, Mizoram. According to the petitioner, the land was originally allotted to her grandfather under Permit No. 101 of 1961, and the Permit standing in the name of her grand father was subsequently converted into Periodic Patta No. 148 of 2007 in her name. It appears that the Periodic Patta No. 148 of 2007 again got converted into LSC No. 105301/10/318 of 2009 in her name. After inheriting this land, she has been tending the same by doing cultivation works thereon.

2. It is also the case of the petitioner that sometime in the month of November, 2009, she came to learn that the respondent No. 1 unauthorisedly excavated the said land for fish pond. As soon as she came to know about this, she petitioner asked the respondent No. 1 to cease his illegal activities on her land and not to disturb her peaceful possession of the same. The respondent No. 1 refused to oblige her by claiming that the portion of land where he made the excavation for a fish pond was a part of his land covered by Periodic Patta No. 148 of 1986, which he purchased from the respondent No. 2 in 1986. This prompted her to move the Assistant Settlement Officer-1 (ASO-I), Land Revenue & Settlement, Aizawl, Mizoram for settling the dispute between her and the respondent No. 1. The ASO thereafter detailed one Vanlalruata, Surveyor to conduct a spot verification of the disputed lands for which parallel claims were made by the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. On the basis of the report made by the Surveyor, the ASO-I passed the order dated 13.01.2010 settling the dispute in favour of the petitioner by holding that the portion of the land wherein the respondent No. 1 made a fish pond and the portion which was trespassed by him fell within the area of land covered under Garden LSC No. 318 of 2009 standing in the name of the petitioner and directed the respondent No. 1 not to disturb her peaceful possession over the same. In the meantime, the ASO-1 had also issued the stay order dated 08.01.2010 against the respondent No. 1. Apparently, the respondent No. 1 never challenged the order of the ASO-1 before the higher forum.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order of the ASO-1, the respondent started felling trees and cleared the disputed land for doing jhuming cultivation by utilizing the services of the Pentecostal Youth Department. The Village Council/Court of Sialsuk the ASO-1 that they did not accept the settlement order dated 13.01.2010, which prompted the ASO to issue another order dated 04.02.2010 informing the respondent No. 1 and the Village Council/Court of Sialsuk to respect and comply with the settlement order dated 13.01.2010. When the respondent No. 1 continued to occupy the land of the petitioner, she approached the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl District, Mizoram in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2010 praying for restraining the respondent No. 1 from disturbing her peaceful possession of the disputed land and for payment of adequate amount of compensation by the respondent No. 1 for damages caused to her land. The