Point of Law : When the authority has already made up its mind, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner due to the fact that petitioner who claims to have been issued a permit for his land in the year 1962 did not agitate his caused for a long long time and in fact, until he filed his earlier writ petition in the year 2014.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Also heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 7 to 10.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure-21) passed by the respondent No. 8, by which Permit No. 229/1962 issued to the petitioner by the erstwhile Mizo District Council, has been cancelled. The petitioner has also claimed rental compensation from the respondent authorities for occupation of his land by the Security Forces w.e.f. 1966 till date along with interest and for the period thereafter, until the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 vacate his land.

3. Be it stated herein that this is the second time the petitioner has approached this Court. The earlier writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. 78/2014 was disposed of at the motion stage vide Order dated 07.08.2014 by constituting a Joint Spot Verification Team to conduct spot verification on the claim of the petitioner and also verify his permit within a specified time. It was further directed that if the petitioner was found entitled to be paid compensation, the claim and payment of compensation be also made within a specified time frame of 4 (four) weeks. In terms of the Court’s direction, the constituted Joint Verification Team conducted a joint spot verification on 15.10.2014 and as per its report, the genuineness of the Permit No. 229/1962 belonging to the petitioner could not be proved by the District Office of Land Revenue & Settlement, Mamit due to non availability of the connected paper or guard file. It was stated that the same may be checked and verified in the Office of the respondent No. 9 i.e. Director, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl. The report further stated that land was currently being occupied by the Border Security Force (BSF) and the same location was claimed by one Mr. Lalsailova Sailo of Phuldungsei and whose case was under process. The report also stated that old trenches dug by the Security Forces were visible at several locations to prove their occupation of the land.

4. Thereafter, the respondent No. 10 vide Letter dated 16.01.2015 based on the findings of the Joint Verification Team, assessed the rental charges payable to the petitioner and submitted the same to the respondent No. 8, the respondent No. 8 vide Letter dated 09.03.2015 directed the respondent No. 10 to clarify certain points and thereafter, the respondent No. 10 forwarded the joint verification report along with the assessment of rental charges to the Commandant, 39th Assam Rifles for necessary action along with a copy to the respondent No. 7. Despite this, as no payment was forthcoming, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 21/2015. Contempt Petition was contested by respondents claiming that the respondent No. 9 had leased out the land involved to the respondent No. 5 vide certificate of Land Lease No. DLP No. 23/2001 which was issued on 12.01.2001 for a period of 25 years i.e. w.e.f. 01.08.1999 to 31.07.2024. Further, the respondent No. 8 vide Order dated 26.04.2016 passed an order in favour of the petitioner treating the two Village Council Passes overlapping the petitioner’s District Council Permit No. 229/1962 to be null and void. The two Village Council Passes were Pass No. 7/1965 issued to Mr. R. Lalchawiliana and Pass No. NIL dated 22.02.1965 issued to Mr. Lalsailova Sailo.

5. In view of such a stand, the respondent No. 8 was directed to file an affidavit clarifying the stand of the Revenue Department. Respondent No. 8 then filed an additional affidavit clarifying that the BSF was the legal owner of the land since the petitioner neither utilized nor paid any tax for the land which he claimed to be his. The respondent No. 8 also annexed a copy of the impugned Order dated 28.03.2017 by which Permit No. 229/1962 issu