Point of Law : It cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Ms. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 r/w section 151 CPC for setting aside the impugned Judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 passed by Sr. Civil Judge-I , Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 16/2008.

3. The brief facts of the case is the respondent is the proprietor of T.C. Stone Work Located at I.T.I. Veng, Aizawl covered by 5 (five) LSC’s bearing No. 104402/01/21 of 1999, 104402/01/22 of 1999, 104402/01/24 of 1999, 104402/01/99 of 2000, 104402/01/369 of 2005, and he has been extracting stone from his Quarry for his livelihood vide Registration No. 580103129 dated 06.04.1998 which was renewed from time to time till he received a letter from appellant No. 5, Joint Director, Geology and Mining Wing to stop extracting of stone from his quarry stating that his application of renewal/extension of Minor Mineral permit was rejected vide Letter No. D.13021/1/2006/DTE-IND(GM) Vol-III, dated 12th Oct. 2006. Aggrieved by the letter dated 12th October, 2006, the respondent filed the Civil Suit No. 16/2008 before the Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl District, Aizawl claiming of rental compensation amounting to Rs. 74,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of cancellation of quarry permit and also Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental suffering, etc.

4. The appellants in their written statement objected on the grounds that the respondent is not the legal/rightful owner of the 5 (five) LSC’s and none of the said LSC’s had been mutated in his name nor have any power of attorney from the respective LSC’s holder for claiming compensation. The appellants denied issuance of Minor Mineral permit No. 001/1/105-45 of 2005 dated 30.8.2005 to other 4 (four) LSC’s except the area covered by LSC No. 104402/01/24 of 1999. That the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 600/- only for the quarry royalty and the validity of the royalty permit was only 3 months w.e.f. September 2005 till November, 2005. The respondent failed to renew the permit within a stipulated period. As such, the appellants could not be responsible for the fault committed by the respondent. The mining permit was granted for a period of 3 (three) months within the area covered by LSC No. 104402/01/24 of 1999 but when the assessment was made the respondent had misguided the official by showing to have much wider area including the 4 (four) LSC’s this has resulted in over assessment of the reserved rock.

5. On the basis of pleadings of both parties only 2 (two) issues were framed on 5.1.2009:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him or not. If so, to what extend?

The above 2 (two) issues were decided in favour of the respondent and the trial court passed it’s impugned Judgment and order and decree for Rs. 49,86,670/- to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the suit. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2014 in Civil Suit No. 16/2008 passed by Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl District, hence this appeal.

6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants submits that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law in as much as Rule 1 (3) of Order XIV of CPC is overlooked to the effect that the State appellants in their written statement have objected on the locus-standi of the respondents. But issues were not framed as to whether the respondents have the locus-standi to file a suit? The Ld. Trial Court erred in fact in as much as not considering the fact that the mining permit was applied against the land of Lalthankhumi covered under LSC No. 104402/01/24 of 1999 The respondent is to prove his enforceable rights to file a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The principle that it is for the plaintif