The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for damage caused by public works under the PMGSY scheme.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the State appellants. Also heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi for the sole respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed by the State appellants against the Judgment & Decree dated 30.07.2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Damage Suit No. 3/2008. By the impugned Judgment & Decree, the learned Trial Court has held that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to received compensation from the State for destruction of water canal, fruit bearing trees and paddy field covered by Periodic Patta No. 606101/09/68 of 2004 caused by earth spoils from the road construction of Chhingchhip to Hmunthra by the State defendants under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY). Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Serchhip District, Serchhip was directed to make assessment of the compensation payable to the respondent/plaintiff as per the market value within a period of two months from the date of the decree and thereafter, to submit the assessment to the State defendant Nos. 1 to 6 with a copy to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were directed to pay the amount of compensation as assessed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the assessment.

3. At the outset, it may be noticed that although the Lower Court Records were requisitioned vide Order dated 24.06.2013 by this Court but however, the appeal has not been admitted. This fact has not been pointed out by the learned counsels for the parties. However, considering the fact that the appeal has been heard at length by this Court on 04.04.2018, I do not find any impediment in admitting the appeal even at this stage. Accordingly, the appeal stands admitted. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff/respondent shall be referred to as the respondent and the appellants/defendants shall be referred to as the appellants hereafter.

4. Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The respondent filed Damage Suit No. 3/2008 on 24.04.2008 contending that he was the legal and lawful owner of Periodic Patta No. 606101/09/68 of 2004 located on the banks of the river Tuikum at Chhingchhip covering an area of 7.21 bighas. According to the appellant, he inherited the above plot of land from his father, Shri. Saihnawla after he expired in the month of January 2004 by obtaining Heirship Certificate No. 157/2008. According to the respondent, he and his family have been developing the paddy field covered by the said periodic patta for wet rice cultivation commencing from the year 1960 till 2003. Apart from the wet rice cultivation, the respondent and his family planted a number of fruit bearing trees including cash crops in the plot of land and from which, they earn a substantial amount by selling them in the market. However, in the year 2003, the appellants constructed Chhingchhip to Hmunthra road under the PMGSY Scheme and in the process of the construction of the road, about 400 meters length out of the 600 meters long canal used for supplying water to the paddy field was damaged. As a result, the supply of water to the paddy field was entirely stopped and paddy cultivation was no longer possible. Although, the respondent and his late father submitted several representations to the State authorities, the same having no fruitful result, the respondent initiated the Damage Suit. By filing Damage Suit No. 3/2008, the respondent has claimed the following reliefs:-

"(a) That the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 7,52,300/- for the destruction of paddy field, canal, fruit bearing trees, etc.

(b) That the Plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 50,000,000/- as loss of income for deprivation of their right to use their land and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental suffering, agony etc.

(c) That the Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation by applying multiplier 10 from the prices o