IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the compensation for property damage caused by excavation, emphasizing the need for accurate valuation and just compensation for losses incurred.

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

The appellant in this case is Shri C. Laltanpuia. Sh. P.C. Lalrinawma, the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl district, Aizawl and the Settlement Officer, Land Revenue & Settlement, Aizawl district, Aizawl are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff has brought up a money suit registered as Money Suit No. 70/2011 for payment of compensation by the appellant/defendant No. 1 amounting to Rs.12,53,300/-(Rupees Twelve Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred) and interest @ 20% from the day of dismantlement of the plaintiff’s house building till realization of the claimed compensation and payment of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lacs) for the landed property that was damaged due to the house site development of the appellant/defendant No. 1.

2. The genesis of the case was that the plaintiff had a plot of land under L.S.C. No. 2008/1987 located at Chanmari West, Aizawl which he had purchased in the year 1996 and constructed an Assam Type building between October, 2003 to April, 2004. He let out some rooms on rent to three tenants and was earning monthly rents of Rs. 1500/-+ Rs. 1200/-+ Rs.800/-respectively from the tenants.

3. It is averred that the appellant/defendant No. 1 had purchased the adjoining land area of land covered by LSC No. 2009/1987 in the year 2009. It is averred by the respondent No. 1 that the appellant repeatedly requested the respondent No. 1 to purchase his land but the respondent No. 1 refused. Meanwhile, the appellant started digging his land from the lower side of the Sairang road with the help of a JCB and without any precautionary measures. This led to the destruction of the land of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1’s tenants were compelled to vacate the tenanted premises on 17.03.2011 as they were petrified. Respondent No. 1 then lodged a complaint to the respondent No. 2 on 23.03.2011 and the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate vide order dated 24.03.2011 directed the appellant to stop his excavation procedure until further orders. A notice dated 25.03.2011 was issued to all concerned and in pursuance of the complaint of the respondent No. 1, the representatives of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl (DC for short) and Geology Minerals Resources Development visited the place of occurrence. On 24.03.2011, surveyors from the office of the DC (Revenue), Aizawl measured the land covered by LSC No. 2009/1987 belonging to the appellant. A team of Experts conducted spot verification on 23.03.2011, 24.03.2011 and 25.03.2011 and Geotechnical Assessment Report was submitted on 26.03.2011.

4. According to the report, the appellant had conducted house site development without any precautionary measures from the end of February, 2011 and cracks started appearing on the land of the respondent No. 1 on 23.03.2011 onwards.

5. It is further averred that in pursuance of the notice dated 25.03.2011, a joint inspection was conducted in connection with the landslide to assess the vulnerability of the site. A joint report was submitted on 28.03.2011, which depicts that the reasons of abandonment of the respondent No.1’s house by his tenants was the result of digging of earth by the appellant. On receipt of Joint Inspection Report, an order was passed by the District Magistrate, Aizawl district on 31.03.2011 under Section 133 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) that the respondent No. 1’s house had to be dismantled immediately as the excavation work had caused a threat to his house which may cause greater disaster in and around the area and lives of the residents beyond NH-54. Further, another order was passed on receipt of the joint inspection report on 31.03.2011 directing the appellant to construct RCC Counter fort Retaining Wall of 2/3 stories at 60 degree angle before heavy rainfall occurs. The work should commence after consultation with Geologist and Structural Engineer.

6. It is further averred by the respond