IMPORTANT POINT
A landowner is entitled to compensation for illegal occupation of their property, even in the absence of a formal rental agreement, if the occupation is unrefuted.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. Also heard Mr. Miller Biakrempuia Renthlei, learned counsel for the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 3.

2. The present Regular First Appeal is presented against the Judgment & Order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lawngtlai, Mizoram in Civil Suit No. 1/2021. By the aforesaid Judgment & Order dated 18.11.2022, the Civil Suit No. 1/2021 filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed.

3. The facts of the case is that the plaintiff/appellant filed the Civil Suit No. 1/2021, wherein he made a claim against the defendants/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for payment of rental compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit and also for payment of the arrears of the rent amounting to Rs. 54,50,000/- with an interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. January, 2012 due to the illegal and forceful occupation of his land covered by LSC No. 20/2011 covering an area of 50,000 sq. mt. located at Bungtlang South, Lawngtlai District, Mizoram.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff/appellant that the Trial Court initiated ex-parte proceedings against the defendants/respondents vide its Order dated 22.11.2021. However, despite the plaintiff/appellant having proved his case by adducing evidences, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Situated thus, the present Regular First Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant.

5. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the Judgment & Order of the Trial Court is manifestly and palpably erroneous, inasmuch as, despite having come to the finding that the defendants/respondents are illegally occupying the land of the plaintiff/appellant, dismissed the suit and rejected the relief of rental compensation as claimed by the plaintiff/appellant in the said suit.

6. He further submits that the suit having proceeded ex-parte and there being no written statement filed on behalf of the defendants/respondents, the Trial Court ought to have pronounced the judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint.

7. He further submits that despite the suit having proceeded ex-parte, the Trial Court called the plaintiff/appellant to adduce evidence to prove his case instead of pronouncing the judgment on the facts pleaded and hence, has committed manifest error by not following the procedure laid down in Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Per contra, Mr. Miller Biakrempuia Renthlei, learned counsel for the defendants/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that there is no infirmity or irregularity whatsoever in the judgment and order of the Trial Court and hence, the impugned judgment warrants no interference from the Appellate Court.

9. He further submits that the plaintiff/appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that the plaintiff is entitled for any compensation as claimed from the defendants/respondents.

10. Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 3 submits that she has received no instructions to object to the instant appeal.

11. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and have perused the materials available on record.

12. It appears that the land of the plaintiff/appellant (covered by LSC No. 20/2011) was occupied by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 during the construction of a new 2-Lane Highway from NH-54 near Lawngtlai to Indo-Myanmar Border in Mizoram for the purpose of depositing and stocking unwanted soil, debris, stones, boulder, pellet and sand, thereby dispossessing the plaintiff/appellant from the subject land.

13. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 18 of the plaint is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“3. That the plaintiff was allotted a plot of land by the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, LADC under Section 12 of the L