SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, AIZAWL BENCH
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sh. Rohmingliana and Ors. - Respondents
I.A.(C) No. 107 of 2021 in RFA No. 36 of 2021 with I.A.(Civil) No. 10 of 2022
Decided On : 23-06-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi.
For the Respondents: Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, G.a. Mizoram, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, Addl. Adv. General.

Point of Law : Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to same. The legal maxim “duralexsedlex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation.

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 3A - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condoning delay of 1411 days - Appeal against Judgment & Order - Applicants submits that appellants/applicants have preferred an appeal against Judgment & Order passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, in Civil Suit, whereby Senior Civil Judge decided all issues in favour of plaintiff - Whether or not to file an appeal against the Execution Case and not against impugned Judgment & Order, only when certain differences of opinion arose in execution of Judgment & Order - Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to same. The legal maxim “duralexsedlex” which means “the law is hard but it is law”, stands attracted in such a situation. (Para 16).

Findings of the Court :

Court find that no sufficient explanation for delay in filling the appeal against the Judgment & Order between period is made out - The subsequent explanation in preparing the appeal petition after obtaining the opinion of the Asst. Solicitor General, Gauhati High Court, is noted, but this cannot be a sufficient cause to explain the inaction of the appellant in not taking steps for filing an appeal promptly on receiving a copy of the Judgment & Order - This inaction has held to a delay of 1411 days in filling the appeal against Judgment & Order - Further, in the instant case it is seen that the applicant/appellant has taken various steps in furtherance of the Judgment & Order and had sought the legal opinion of the CGC, whether or not to file an appeal against the Execution Case and not against the impugned Judgment & Order, only when certain differences of opinion arose in the execution of Judgment & Order - Court am thus constrained to hold that there was inaction and negligence on the part of the applicants in filing the appeal belatedly and out of time - Court also of the considered opinion that the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants cannot be applied to the facts of the present case wherein the circumstances for condoning the delay are found to be different.

Result : Application disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned counsel for the applicants alongwith Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel representing respondent Nos. 1-100 and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for respondent Nos. 102-106.

2. This is an application under Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1411 days in preferring the appeal.

3. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the appellants/applicants have preferred an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 29 of 2013, whereby the Senior Civil Judge decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff (the respondents in the instant case) and passed the following order.

    “Assessment and payment of rental compensation to the plaintiffs by the defendants for occupation of their lands should be strictly in accordance with the Mizoram Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1974. Accordingly, the Defendant No. 9, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl is hereby directed to fix the rental charge in respect of the lands of the plaintiffs and make assessment as per the relevant Act with effect from 01/01/2008 till date within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl is to note the fact that the Union of India and others have continuously been occupying the land of the plaintiff w.e.f. the year, 1966 and revision of the rental charge should be done after every five years as per relevant Act.

The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (Union of India & Ors.) shall make payment of rental charge commencing from 01/01/2008 till date within a period of four months from the date of receipt of assessment of rental compensation from the Defendant No. 9, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and deposit the same by way of cheque to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl for further disbursement to the plaintiffs.

The Defendant No. 9, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl shall, on perusal of the records maintained by their office, prepare arrears of rental charges in respect of plaintiff Nos. 53 to 68 or anyone else of the party herein who have not been paid rental compensation right from the beginning till date and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (Union of India & Others) shall deposit the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl by way of cheque within a period of four months from today for further disbursement to the plaintiffs.

The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall either vacate or acquire the land of the plaintiff within a period of six months as it is not proper on the part of the government body to take possession of somebody's land without following due process of law. Accordingly, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to take prompt action in this connection within a period of six months from today. And after a lapse of six months from today, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (Union of India & Others) shall be liable to be evicted from the land of the plaintiffs and peaceful possession of the land shall be handed over to the plaintiffs.”

4. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant then submits that the reason for the delay in filling the appeal application thereafter is for the following reasons;

    i. On 12.10.2017, the CGC, Aizawl forwarded the Judgment & Order dated 06.10.2017 to the Defence Estate Officer/DEO. On 03.04.2018 the Deputy Commissioner fixed the date for Joint Survey and a Joint Survey Report was prepared on 03.05.2018. Thereafter on 12.06.2018 the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram forwarded the assessment of rental compensation to the Defence Estate Officer (DEO), Guwahati, which was received on 21.08.2018, on 27.06.2018 clarification was sought from the Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Revenue Department regarding the increase of land in the assessment submitted vide the impugned letter dated 12.06.2018.

ii. Thereafter, on 05.11.2018, the CGC, Aizawl forwarded a co

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top