M.R. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Bibhash Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos. 5, 7 & 8. Also heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, leaned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. K. Lalramnghaki for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. A. K. Rokhum, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 8 to 11/defendant Nos. 1 to 4.

2. This appeal under Order 41 of the Court of Civil Procedure read with Section 17 (2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 have been filed by the appellants Union of India in the Defence Department against the judgment & order dated 28.08.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Lunglei District, Lunglei in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2010 preferred by the respondents as plaintiffs.

3. It is stated that from June 1967 the appellants herein are in occupation of the garden land of the respondents/plaintiffs located at Pukpui (Kawmzawl) in the District of Lunglei for security purpose since the days of the insurgency period in the State. The respondents/plaintiffs alleged that they are the owners of their said land on the strength of Village Council Passes/Periodic Pattas and Land Settlement Certificates (LSC) issued by the Pukpui Village Council and the Revenue Department of the State respectively. As they did not receive any compensation for their land which is under occupation of the appellants/defendants since June 1967, even after the peace accord dated 30.06.1986 signed between the Government of India and the Mizo National Front, being aggrieved, the respondents herein as plaintiffs, in June 2010 preferred the said Civil Suit No. 13 of 2010 before the leaned Civil Judge at Lunglei, praying for, amongst others -

(i) for a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring that the defendants are in illegal and forceful occupation of the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs are entitled to payment of rental compensation in respect of the suit land occupied by the defendants No. 5 to 8 for the period from August 1967 till the date of filling the suit or till vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land that are to be formally handed over to the plaintiffs in accordance with the entitlement @ Rs. 1.249 per square feet per year or as was done in the case of Sh. C. Lalhmingliana and two others, whichever is the higher and

(ii) for a decree declaring that the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 are liable to pay rental compensation to the plaintiffs for a total area of the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs which are occupied by said defendants as may be calculated under (i) above for the period from June 1967 till the date of filling the suit or till vacant and peaceful possession that is returned to the plaintiffs along with pended light @ 9% per annum.

4. The appellants/defendants contested the said Civil Suit No. 13/2010 of the respondents/plaintiffs by filling their written statements in June 2011 stating that the said suit is not maintainable, the same has not been properly valued and requisite court fees has not been paid, barred by limitation, notice under Section 80 Cr.P.C. have not been duly served upon the defendants etc. In their written statement the present appellants stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Home have already sanctioned an amount of Rs. 14,05,73,313/- towards rental compensation for the period from 1966 to 30.08.1986 for the areas occupied by the Security Forces in the State of Mizoram and for that purpose Government of India has already paid an amount of Rs. 5,19,93,771/- for the period from 01.09.1986 to 31.12.1997 and another amount of Rs. 8,86,64,648/- for the period from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2005 to the Government of Mizoram towards rental compensation of various land that were under occupation of the Defence Department in the State of Mizoram and further paid an amount of Rs. 1,98,30,370/- for the period from 2006-2007 and that these payments were made as per the calculation submitted by the Government