JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. L.H Lianhrima learned Sr. counsel for the appellant along with Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. This is a Regular First Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 25/2009, wherein the learned trial court had dismissed the Money suit.

3. The appellants case in brief is that the Appellants/Plaintiffs are the land owners who had been developing and maintaining their lands by planting various crops, several fruit bearing trees at Venghnuai, Aizawl. In the meantime, the defendant no 1 issued and displayed HRIATTIRNA (NOTIFICATION) dated 28.12.2005 to the effect that Aizawl– Thenzawl Lunglei road construction had been carried out and damages caused to the land owners would be jointly verified and assessment would be made and compensation would be paid at the earliest. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SPLO), PIU, PWD wrote to the Defendant no. 2 dated 24.04.2008, that some villagers' lands and crops had been damaged at down hill side of the project alignment along Aizawl Bypass due to dozing down of debris at many places at the time of excavating pilot road and requested him to instruct the defendant no 3 to provide Wall for prevention of rolling down of debris/earth spoils at any unauthorized disposal site along Aizawl Bypass and to be very careful to avoid or minimize damage beyond acquired area especially at down hill side of alignment. Failing which the cost of damage to properties would be borne by the Contractor. Accordingly, the Defendant No 2 wrote to the Defendant No 3 by enclosing the said letter and informing him that the cost of any damage to properties of the land owners would be the responsibility of the defendant no 3, the Contractor. Thereafter, the SPLO re-directed complaint letters duly supported by Joint. Verification Records to the Defendant No 2 vide his letter No.MPWD-7/PIU/RAP/PH-11/08/37 dated 24th April, 2008 requesting him to do the needful for early settlement of the complaints made by the five affected persons and the SPLO was of the view that the Contractor is responsible for the damages caused to the land owners for amicable solution. As a result, the Defendant No 2 wrote to the Defendant No 3 reiterating that the defendant no 3, Contractor is responsible for all damages caused and requesting him to report back in writing that each case is resolved and attach details of the settlement documentation. However, no appropriate action has been taken by the defendants for making payment of compensation to the Plaintiffs even after several months had elapsed. Since the defendants failed to give compensation for damages caused to the crops and fruit bearings trees of the plaintiffs even after serving legal notice under section 80, CPC, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Money Suit No 25 of 2009 for recovery of adequate compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-for damages of plants and fruit bearing trees and also acquisition of the land of the plaintiffs.

4. The Defendant no.1/respondent no.1 in their Written statement held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the State Government should have been made a party. That the HRIATTIRNA dated 28.12.2005 is for use/purchase of new land required to be acquired on need basis. That the letter written by Defendant No.2 dated 17.12.2007 to Defendant No.3 was a letter of awareness to make a barricade or any other precaution to avoid debris from going into private land to avoid damage to the surrounding area other than the area designated for disposal site. That the property of the plaintiff was outside the acquired area and therefore the Special land Acquisition Officer SPLO had asked the contractor to look into the matter. That the manner in which the verification was done was defective since it was the standing crops which was entered in the verification records.

5. The Defendant No.3/respondent no.3, in their written sta