The High Court generally does not entertain writ petitions involving complex and disputed questions of fact, and the Limitation Act is applicable to suits filed by tribal residents of Mizoram against the State machinery.

Upon hearing Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioners in 12 nos. and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Govt 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 Road 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 the 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 alia, that the petitioners ought to have approached the competent civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter for the said relief's so far claimed by them arid 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 Govt 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 extraordinary 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 that 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 that 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 minutes examination of it by a competent civil Court. It is well settled that generally and ordinarily the High Court while exercising its ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document