Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
F. Lalthangliana (L) R/b his Son F. Zothanchhunga – Petitioner
Versus
State of Mizoram and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 78 of 2022
Decided On : 24-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 – Lands - Vacant and peaceful possession - Rental compensation - Whether the Plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the land covered by respective LSCs granted in favour of the Plaintiffs - In pursuant to decision of the aforesaid meeting, respondent No. 3 had issued aforementioned letter dated to respondent No. 5 by which he was informed to initiate action of cancellation of 29 LSCs belonging to the present petitioners. Para 14
Finding of Court : Present respondents took plea in aforementioned civil cases that LSCs which were issued to present petitioners were fake, however, said plea was found to be unsustainable and was not accepted by both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court - It appears that present respondents as well as petitioners were parties in Civil Suit No. as well as RFA No. and as said judicial decision has attained finality and unless it is agitated before appropriate judicial forum in appropriate proceeding, it is binding on all authorities including all State respondents of instant case - In view of finality of Judgment passed in RFA No., any action of any of respondents including decision taken by Government of Mizoram in its meeting held , which is impugned in this writ petition, wherein decision for cancellation of all 29 LSCs issued to present petitioners was taken and in pursuant to said decision letter vide Memo No dated was issued by the respondent No. 5 as well as Show Cause Notices dated which were issued to petitioners by respondent No. 5 are liable to be set aside.
Result : Writ petition is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by 29 nos. of petitioners impugning the minutes issued vide memo No. C.18018/4/94-HMP/Vol-I dated 26.04.2021 of the meeting held in the Chief Secretary’s Conference Hall on 20.04.2021 to discuss the future course of action in pursuance of the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2017 passed by this Court in RFA No. 30/2013 (State of Mizoram vs. F. Lalthangliana and Others) wherein it was, inter alia, decided that the land settlement certificates (LSCs) issued to the present writ petitioners are to be cancelled and also impugning the letter Memo No. C.15016/5/2002-LEGAL/DTE(REV) dated 30.04.2021 issued by the respondent No. 5 in pursuant to the resolution adopted in the aforementioned meeting held on 20.04.2021 as well as Show Cause Notices dated 30.07.2021 issued to the petitioners by the respondent No. 5, in violation of the decree passed by this Court in pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2017 in RFA No. 30/2013.
3. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of directions for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the lands after making rental compensation by respondent No. 6, 7 and 8 to the petitioners with effect from the date of conferring right and title over the land in connection with which land settlement certificate were issued to the present petitioners which was conferred by the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2017 of this Court in RFA No. 30/2013 till said land is vacated or acquired in accordance with law.
4. The petitioners’ case, in brief, is that they are citizens of India belonging to the Mizo (Scheduled Tribe) community and are permanent residents of Mizoram, Lunglei District. The petitioners and their predecessors in interest had applied for and were allotted house sites at Luangmual Ram, Lunglawn, Lunglei by issuance of land settlement certificate (herein after referred to “LSC”) in the vicinity and adjacent to the land allotted to the respondent No. 5 for 2nd Battalion MAP Complex at Luangmual, Lunglei by the authorities of the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram. The nature and extent of the area of land holdings of the respective petitioners are shown as follows:
S. No. Name of land Owners Land Passes under LSCs Area in Sq. Ft.
1. F. Lalthangliana (L) 96 of 1989 26199.51
2. J. Dengliani 95 of 1989 10010
3. Nihliangi 97 of 1989 18406.44
4. F. Kapzawna 98 of 1989 8212
5. R. Rualkhuma 99 of 1989 19855.361
6. F. Lalnunmawii 100 of 1989 21070
7. F. Challianngura 103 of 1989 18164.25
8. R. Hmingliana 104 of 1989 17491.5
9. Lalthanpari Tochhawng 105 of 1989 18271.89
10. Lalduhawmi 109 of 1989 13993.2
11. Lalzahawma 229 of 1989 18837
12. R. Lalthangpuii 230 of 1989 18837
13. Lalduhawmi 295 of 1989 20291
14. Lalnuntluanga 111 of 1989 17168.58
15. Lalrinkima Fanai 102 of 1989 16146
16. Lalrinngheta Fanai 106 of 1989 13514.20
17. Lalrinfela Fanai 107 of 1989 12378.6
18. F. Lalzuala 112 of 1989 17674.488
19. V. Hmingliani 231 of 1989 16576.56
20. Lalrinzuala Fanai 291 of 1989 15070
21. Tluangtea 133 of 1989 9364
22. Hmingliana 110 of 1989 16304.769
23. Lalnunmawia 277 of 1989 16576.56
24. Remmawii 116 of 1989 14356.75
25. Odey Lallawmsanga Ralte 101 of 1989 16834.896
26. C. Laltanpuia 115 of 1989 14604.057
27. R. Thanga 114 of 1989 13804.88
28. Vanlalrokima 108 of 1989 17164
29. Vunghnuna 296 of 1989 16684
5. Some of the petitioners being aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in illegally encroaching their lands by construction of residential quarters with effect from the beginning of the year 1989 had submitted representation to the respondents against the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Due to inaction of the respondents and their non-responsiveness on the representation fil
SupremeToday
quasi-judicial authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated to the party concerned.
The court's decision emphasized the need for convincing evidence to support allegations of forgery and illegal deprivation in land acquisition cases, and the requirement for a full-fledged trial for ....
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
The settlement claim must be substantiated with relevant documents in a summary proceeding.
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is maintainable when statutory authorities act without jurisdiction, allowing for correction of records even after finalization.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of continuous rent receipts and evidence of possession in validating land settlements under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It also highlights the significanc....
The Joint Collector is competent to exercise power under BSO 15(18) and deal with the issues regarding assignment of land. The power under BSO 15(18) can be exercised at any time in view of the langu....
The Deputy Commissioner's actions were found to be in compliance with the MLR & LR Act and Rules, and substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. The court declined to interfere wi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
