Point of Law: whether fundamental or constitutional, the fact remains that it has always been recognized as a right guaranteed under the Constitution in favour of a citizen/person and no persons can be deprived of this valuable right which the Constitution has given to him, save by authority of law.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 61/2015 wherein the sole respondent was the petitioner. By the said Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2020, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents therein i.e. the appellants herein to pay the rental charges of the land under the Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) no. 128/1979 to the respondent herein/the petitioner therein at the same rate paid by the Union of India beginning from the date the land was released by the Security Forces to the appellants. It has been further directed that the rental charges shall be computed by the District Collector i.e. the respondent no. 2 therein/the appellant no. 2 herein and thereafter, to pay the due amount to the petitioner therein/the sole respondent herein, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. It has further been directed to the appellants to release the land of the sole respondent immediately, if it is no longer required. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. Heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

3. In order to understand the issue involved, a brief narration of the background facts appears necessary. The respondent had claimed to be the owner of landed properties at Zemabawk, Aizawl on the basis of two Land Settlement Certificates (LSC) - LSC no. 128/1979 and LSC no. 615/1979. It was the contention of the respondent that the lands covered by the aforesaid two LSCs were under the occupation of the Union of India through the Security Forces since the year 1966 due to the insurgency problems in the State of Mizoram. The problems of the insurgency were settled through a Memorandum of Understanding entered between the Government of India and the Mizo National Front (MNF) on 30.06.1986. The respondent was aggrieved when the lands under the possession of the Union of India were neither released nor due compensation was paid, save and except some amounts paid intermittently.

3.1. A number of litigations was pursued thereafter by land holders including the respondent, before the judicial fora for a number of years, the details which are not necessary for the purpose of the present appeal, save and except a reference to an Order dated 06.10.2010 passed in a writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 18/2010 wherein the sole respondent was one of the respondents.

3.2. By the said Order dated 06.10.2010, the Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl to determine the rate and the quantum of compensation payable to the respondents therein by the Union of India/the State of Mizoram for the period of occupation of the lands of the respondents therein. A direction

was also made to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl to take a decision in the matter on or before 31.05.2011.

3.4. Pursuant to the said Order dated 06.10.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl made an Award no. 6/2012 wherein rental charges payable to the sole respondents were calculated. When the said Award was forwarded to the Union of India, an objection was raised on behalf of the Union of India by its letter dated 09.06.2011, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl stating, inter-alia, that the land of the respondent was de-hired from 09.09.1996. As the land of the respondent was de-hired by them on and from 09.09.1996, it was contended on behalf of the Union of India that the respondent was not entitled to get any compensation for the period beyond 09.09.1996 and the assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 21.03.2011 had illegally included the assessment of compensation for the period up to March, 2011.

3.5. After receipt of the rental charges from the Union of India, for the period up to 09.09.1996, the respondent preferred