Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AIZAWL BENCH)
A.B. Pal, J.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
V.L. Rawna and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 12.01.2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legal obligation of parties under the Mizoram (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in the second appeal.
Headnote:
Union of India - Land Dispute - Mizoram (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963, Section 3 - The judgment discusses the validity of permits and land settlement certificates issued under the Mizoram (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963, and the legal obligations of the parties involved. It highlights the court's interpretation of the Act and its influence on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a land dispute between the Union of India and the legal heirs of Mura (L) over a 5.5-acre land covered by a permit issued under the Mizoram (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963. The dispute also involves the occupation of a fishpond and the non-payment of rent by the Union of India after the expiration of a 10-year agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land was legally held by Mura (L) under the permit, and the Union of India was obligated to pay rent and compensate for damage to the fishpond. The court also dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions.
Issues: The issues included the validity of permits and land settlement certificates, the legal obligations of the parties, and the jurisdiction of the court in the second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the permit and land settlement certificate granted legal ownership to Mura (L) and his legal heirs, and the Union of India was obligated to pay rent and compensate for damage as per the agreement. The court also emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in the second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
A.B. Pal, J.
1. A 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 Section3 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.
4. In the appeal preferred by the appellants herein several grounds were taken of which the first and foremost is about the title of the plaintiffs, who are admittedly legal heirs of Mura (L). The learned appellate Court found no reason to take a different view from that of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been preferred under Rule 18 of Rules for the Regulation of the Procedure of officers Appointed to Administer Justice in the Lushai Hills 1937 (for short Administration of Justice Rules) read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1998.
5. I have heard Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned CGC, for the appellants and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the permit under Section 3 of Mizoram (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 was issued in favour of the Mura (L) for a period of five years only in the year 1975. Thus the validity of the permit expired in 1980. Again it was renewed in 02.07.91 for another period of five years which expired in 1995. BRTF occupied the land in the year 1982 when there was no permit in favour of Mura (L) and therefore, the agreement in question has no legal force. The BRTF being in occupation since 1982, renewal of the permits on 02.07.91 in favour of the Mura is contrary to the provision of the Mizoram (Agricultural Land) Act 1963. Admittedly, Mura expired in 1988 leaving behind the plaintiffs/respondents herein and at the time of his death there was no permit covering the suit land in his name. Though BRTF continued in occupation of the suit land fr
