The main legal point established is the unauthorized occupation of land and the validity of land settlement certificates under relevant land and revenue acts.

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 21.08.2012, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge-2, Aizawl in Title Suit No. 6/1991, 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 47/1985, 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 Departmental Pass/ 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 lands 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 47/1985, while the appellants claim their right to occupy the land on the basis of temporary Pass/Permit No. 4/1970.

3. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is that a plot of land measuring an area of about 0.29 Bigha, located at Kolasib Hmar veng, Kolasib, was allotted to him by the Mizo District Council vide Pass No. 35 of 1964. The Plaintiff had planted various fruit bearing trees and other plants on the said land. In the year 1985, he applied to the Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Government of Mizoram to convert the said Pass into Land Settlement Certificate (in short LSC) in place of the Pass No. 35 of 1964. After due verification and demarcation, he was issued with LSC No. KLB 47 of 1985 superseding the Pass No. 35 of 1964.

4. In the month of August 1966, the BRTF personnel occupied the 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. 6/1991. The prayer of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff in Title Suit No. 6/1991 was for a decree declaring that the respondent No. 1 was the owner of the land covered by LSC No. KLB 47/1985. The other prayers were for payment of rent @ Rs. 128 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.

6. The appellants herein, who were the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in Title Suit No. 6/1991, filed a written statement and took the stand that they were occupying the land after obtaining Temporary Pass/ 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 47/1985 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. In their written statements, the State of Mizoram took a stand that the respondent No. 1 was initially allotted a plot of land by the Revenue Officer of the erstwhile Mizo District Council under Pass No. 35/1964, which was later converted into LSC No. KLB.47/1985. The State respondents also stated that temporary Permit No. 4/1970 was issued to the BRTF for occupation of the suit land, the validity of which was extended.

8. The learned Trial Court thereafter frame