Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, counsel for the respondent No. 5. The appellant by way of the present regular first appeal has made a challenge to the Judgment and Order dated 9.4.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 11/2002, by which the suit has been dismissed.

2. The present case relates to overlapping of land. The appellant is the owner of land which was initially covered by House Pass No. 539/1989, which was later superseded by the LSC No. 394/1990. The respondent No. 5, on the other hand is the owner of land initially covered by House Pass No. 854/1974, which was later superseded by LSC No. 3126/1985. The overlapping of land covered by the two LSCs does not pertain to the entire land in question but only pertains to overlapping in some areas of the lands covered by the 2 LSCs.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the father of the respondent No. 5 had bought the land covered by LSC No. 3126/1985 from one Sh. L.N. Tluanga and on his death in the year 1992, the present respondent No. 5 had inherited the said land. The respondent No. 5 filed a complaint in the year 1996 to the Land Revenue and Settlement Department, Government of Mizoram complaining that her land had been encroached upon by the appellant. The Revenue Department thereafter issued three Orders dated 24.05.2000, 19.06.2000 and 25.06.2002, wherein it held that the dispute regarding overlapping of land between the appellant and the respondent No. 5 had been enquired into and the parties were also summoned. As no amicable settlement could be made between the parties, the respondent authorities came to a decision that the House Pass and LSC belonging to the respondent No. 5, being issued prior in time to the House Pass and LSC issued in favour of the appellant, the disputed area would belong to the respondent No. 5. The above orders also directed that the building constructed by the appellant on the disputed land would be valued by the PWD as per the PWD Schedule rate and the value of the said building would be paid by the respondent No. 5. The respondent authorities also directed the appellant to look out for a convenient vacant land for transfer of her LSC.

4. The appellant being aggrieved by the three Orders dated 24.05.2000, 19.06.2000 and 25.06.2002 issued by the Revenue Department, she filed Title Suit No. 11/2002 praying for a decree of title over the disputed question of land and for setting aside the orders passed by the Revenue Department.

5. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl vide its Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2011 dismissed the Title Suit No. 11/2002.

6. The appellant thereafter filed RFA No. 26/2011 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2011. RFA No. 26/2011 was disposed of vide Order dated 1.8.2013 directing the learned Trial Court to start the proceedings afresh, from the stage of framing of issues.

7. In pursuant to the Order dated 1.8.2013 passed by this Court in RFA No. 26/2011, the proceedings was started afresh by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, vide Judgment and Order dated 9.4.2014, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl dismissed Title Suit No. 11/2002.

8. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant had been allotted the land covered by LSC No. 394/1990 by way of House Pass No. 539/1989 initially. The appellant accordingly constructed a building in the year 1989. Thereafter in the year 1990, House Pass No. 539/1989 was converted/superseded by LSC No. 854/1974.

9. The appellant's counsel submits that some time in the year 1996, a complaint was lodged for the first time by the respondent No. 5 stating that the appellant had encroached upon the appellant's land. The appellant's counsel submits that the respondent No. 5 having known all al