The main legal point established in the judgment is that a reference application under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be filed within the stipulated time frame, failing which it may be barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the appellants along with Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent No. 3 and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 17(1) of the Mizoram Civil Courts’ Act, 2005 r/w Section 54 of the LA Act, 1894 and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl in L.A. Case No. 01 of 2016.

3. Brief facts leading to this case is that, the appellants/petitioners were land owners of LSCs No. 4009/10/25 of 2007 and No. 4009/10/24 of 2007. The land was acquired by the Ministry of Home affairs for the establishment of Border Out Post for Border Security Force within Mamit District, under Draft Award No. 1 of 2011 made on 20.09.2011, amounting to Rs. 35,69,034/-for the standing crops/plants, approved by the Government on 22.11.2011. Aggrieved by the Draft Award dated 20.09.2011, the petitioners on 30.08.2012, had approached the District Collector, Mamit, by filing an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference of Award No. 1/2011 for determination of the Court. The reference was for payment of cost of land to the petitioners @Rs. 30 per sq.ft. The petitioners also claimed for adequate compensation in respect of the Assam Type house building at the prevailing market rates for the first year of occupation and for payment of solatium @ 30% of the award and interest @ 9%. A reassessment was then held on 16.08.2013 by the District Collector and necessary calculation of the land value was made @Rs 15/-per sq.ft and a compensation of Rs. 58,24,470/-was paid to the petitioners on 23.07.2015. Thereafter, the District Collector, Mamit vide letter dated 16.02.2016 referred the application to the District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl.

4. The respondents objected to the reference application, claiming that there was no cause of action against the respondents and that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and ought to be dismissed outright. The respondents submitted that the notification under Sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the LA Act was issued by the Government of Mizoram for acquisition of land for establishment of 9 (nine) border out post for BSF and Draft Award No. 1/2011 was made to the tune of Rs. 35,69,034/-on 20.09.2011, while the petitioners submitted their application under Section 18 of the LA Act on 30.08.2012 after lapse of more than 11 months. As such, the reference application is barred by limitation. That the petitioners received compensation without protest under Section 31(2) of the LA Act and therefore, the application cannot be entertained or accepted as the same is barred by limitation. From the pleading of both the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 05.02.2019:-

“(i) Whether the present reference application filed by the petitioners u/s 18 of the L.A. Act, 1894 is barred by limitation or not? Whether there is a locus standi to file the petition?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive payment of land value at the rate of Rs 30/- per sq feet?

iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive payment in respect of the 14 Assam Type house buildings constructed within LSCs No 4009/10/25 of 2007 and No. 4009/10/24 of 2007 belonging to the petitioners as per existing market value?

iv) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive payment of solatium @ 30% and 12 % interest as per provision?

v) If entitled to compensation, who shall be liable to pay the same?”

Thereafter, as many as 4 witnesses were examined and the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2021 finding issues No. 1 to 3 in favour of the respondents, issue No. 4 for payment of solatium and interest was not challenged or objected by the respondents. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant