The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of land documents, the liability of the BRTF to pay rent for illegal occupation, and the applicability of the Limitation Act to the case.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

2. This is a Regular First Appeal filed by the Union of India against the Judgment & Decree dated 14.08.2012, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-2, Aizawl in Title Suit N. 6/1989, by which the appellants have been directed to pay rental charges for occupation of the land of the respondent No. 1 covered by Land Settlement Certificate i.e., LSC No. KLB 43/1985, by the Border Roads Task Force (BRTF). The Trial Court also decreed that the land document issued to the appellants by the Mizo District Council in respect of the occupied land i.e., Temporary Permit No. 4/1970, was not lawful and as such, it was declared null and void. It may be pointed out at the outset that the land occupied by the appellants and for which they were directed to pay rent is covered by two sets of land documents. The respondent No. 1 claims title to the land on the basis of LSC Nos. KLB 43/1985, while the appellants claim their right to occupy the land on the basis of Temporary Permit No. 4/1970.

3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is that her husband, namely J. Manliana purchased a plot of land measuring an area of about 1 (one) bigha located at Kolasib Hmar veng, Kolasib, Mizoram from one Shri R. Thansanga alongwith about 40 Orange trees, 54 Assam Lemon trees, 2 Jackfruit trees, I Tamarind tree, some bamboo and Zawngtah trees standing over the land. Even though the land was purchased, he did not get the Land Pass changed in his name till the year 1985. In the year 1985, the Plaintiff''s husband applied to the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Government of Mizoram for settlement Certificate for the said land and after due demarcation was done by the Department, he was issued with Land Settlement Certificate in short LSC No. KLB-43 of 1985. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff''s husband died in the year 1988 and by virtue of Heirship Certificate, the present Plaintiff was declared legal heir in respect of the suit land covered by LSC No. KLB-43 of 1985. Hence the Plaintiff became the legal owner of the said land.

4. In the month of August 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied respondent No. 1''s land mentioned above and during their occupation, the BRTF destroyed all the trees. The BRTF continued the occupation of the land without paying any rent or compensation.

5. Being aggrieved by the damage caused to the land and due to non- payment of rent for occupation of the land by the BRTF, the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 6/1989. The prayer of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in Title Suit No. 6/1989 was for a decree declaring that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 43/1985. The other prayers were for payment of rent @ Rs. 416.32 per month from August 1966 till vacant possession of the land was given to the respondent No. 1 and for damages caused to the land. The rate of rent for the land had been worked out by the office of the Deputy Commissioner.

6. The appellants herein, who were the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in Title Suit No. 6/1989, filed a written statement and took the stand that they were occupying the land after obtaining Temporary Permit No. 4/1970 issued by the Mizo District Council. Further, the appellants occupied the land in 1966 when the land was under the Mizo District of Assam. As such, if any payment of rent was to be made, the same had to be made by the State of Assam. The appellants further took the stand that the LSC No. KLB 43/1985 was obtained fraudulently by deceiving the Authority concerned and as such, the same was void ab-initio. The appellants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who are the State of Mizoram herein, were the defendant Nos. 5 to 9 in the title suit.