The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance and cancellation of House Passes under the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 and relevant rules must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and the court will consider previous court orders influencing the land allocation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Mary L Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing the cancellation Order dated 05.02.2021 (Annexure-5) by which the House Pass that was issued to them have been cancelled by the respondent No. 4. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to conduct spot verification on their land and on the land of the respondent No. 5 to ascertain their respective land holdings.

3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be noticed at the outset. According to the petitioners, they were issued House Pass by the competent authority i.e., the respondent No. 4 under Section 26 & 36 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) read with Rule 14 & 15 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Rules, 2013 (Rules of 2013) with the approval of the Govt. of Mizoram dated 01.09.2017. The respective land of the petitioners are all located at Falkland, Aizawl, Mizoram. The petitioners contend that without any prior notice and without giving any opportunity to them, the respondent No. 4 had issued the cancellation Order dated 05.02.2021 and therefore, the impugned cancellation order being bad in law should be set aside. The petitioners, as already mentioned herein above, have also prayed for conducting a spot verification to ascertain the respective land holdings of the rival parties.

4. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the respondent authorities not having given prior notice to the petitioners, the respondent No. 5 had executed a no objection letter on 29.04.2016 (Annexure-7) which is to the effect that the respondent No. 5 has no objection to the issuance of House Passes to persons who have constructed their residential building without House Passes within the lower portion of his land at Falkland. The said no objection which is in the form of an agreement was executed in the presence of the Chairman, Local Council, Falkland apart from two other witnesses. Therefore, even for this reason, the cancellation order dated 05.02.2021 cannot be sustained and should be set aside.

5. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 on 30.11.2022 submits that the respondent No. 3 had issued a notification on 25.07.2019 notifying the petitioners that a meeting will be held in the Office Chamber of the respondent No. 3 on 30.07.2019 and that the petitioners should come with all their land documents in connection with the land held by them. Further, the Local Council of Falkland was also informed to approach the office on the date fixed. In terms of the said notification, a meeting was subsequently convened on 09.08.2019 wherein, the petitioner No. 1 was present and that she represented the other 3 (three) House Pass holders who are the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 in the present writ petition. The petitioner No. 1 had also given her signature in the attendance sheet on 09.08.2019. The learned counsel submits that what transpired in the meeting held on 09.08.2019 can be appreciated from the meeting minutes which is annexed by the State respondents as Annexure-V to their counter affidavit. He submits that from the meeting minutes, it can be clearly seen that the petitioner No. 1 and the representatives of the Local Council, Falkland had attended the meeting and the petitioner No. 1 stated that the 4 (four) House Passes were obtained by them on the strength of a permit given by the Village Council, Zemabawk in the year 1970. However, upon careful examining the permit, the meeting concluded with a view that the same was a fabricated one and that the land occupied by the petitioners were located within plot No. 44 to 70 which