Point of Law: Appellant cannot take the plea that the Trial Court had erred in not examining the commissioner when no such prayer for examination of the commission was made in the trial court by the neither of the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate, for the petitioners and Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellant by filing this appeal, has challenged the Judgment dated 07.02.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in the case arising out of reference u/s 18 L.A Act in L.A No. 2/2003, whereby, the learned Trial Court declared that the claimant/respondent in the instant case is entitled to get a compensation for the damage to his crops, that is, trees mentioned in the report submitted by the Commission, and was awarded a compensation of Rs.20,24,102/-(Rupees twenty lakhs twenty four thousand one hundred and two) for the damage of the claimant/respondent is standing crops of trees which were on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof. The trial court also awarded interest on the amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till one year and @ 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year till the date of payment of the enhancement amount of compensation. The amount was to be paid by the acquiring department i.e. Ops nos. 2 and 3.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the land belonging to the referring claimant and to as many as 524 persons, measuring an area of 90,22,550.19 Sq.m.= 6741.85 bighas was acquired as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of Dam Axis and Submergence area of Serlui ‘B’ Hydro Electric Power Project. The said land in question is situated on both banks of River Serlui ‘B’ with the V/C area of Saiphai, Bilkhawthlir, Builum, N. Hlimen and Thingdawl. For this acquisition a preliminary Notification U/S. 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Govt. of Mizoram (Revenue Department) vide Memo No. K.12011/1/92-REV Dt. 11.06.2002 and for the same purpose a declaration u/s. 6 of the same Act, was issued vide Memo No. K. 12011/1/92-REV dt.6.10.2003.

4. In pursuance of the above Notifications issued by the Government of Mizoram, a notice u/s 9(1) of the Said Act was issued to the interested persons vide Memo No. F.14011/31(B)/94-DC(A)/407 Dt. 16.10.2003 by the Land Acquisition Collector. After making necessary enquiry, for awarding the compensation for the land, standing crops and trees etc., L.A Collector awarded compensation to the referring claimant and other persons mentioned jointly to the tune of Rs.5,91,61,354/-(Rupees five crores ninety one lakhs sixty one thousand three hundred and fifty four) only. Out of which, the compensation awarded to the referring claimant was Rs.30,000/- as shown at serial No. 20 of the BLOCK-III of the apportionment of the award. The referring-claimant/respondent and other persons named in the award being aggrieved submitted applications u/s. 18 L.A. Act before the L.A. Collector, for referring the matter to Court of the District Judge as the claimant petitioner and others felt that the assessment of the crops were not properly done and the number of teak trees and other crops that would be submerged would be much more than the numbers assessed by the L.A. Collector.

5. The referring-claimant/respondent then submitted an application in the Court of District & Sessions Judge for appointing a commission to ascertain the damages to be caused within his landed area, which would invariably be submerged in the Serlui Hydel Project. After hearing the counsels for both sides the Court appointed Mr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana, Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib to conduct a local inspection and the report should contain the following points :-

(1) Number of crops/trees with particulars of the size

(2) Whether the land is definitely liable to be submerged.

(3) If so what is the amount of that would be damages to the land of Rualkhuma & Sangchhunga of Thingdawl Village. The commission report was received on 7.09.2007. Copies were furnished to the parties through their respective counsels.

6. As the report did not give a report of the entire land to be affected,