IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the cancellation of land settlement certificates based on procedural compliance and the validity of overlapping land claims.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge – IV, Aizawl District in Civil Suit No. 97/2012. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree, the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed. The present appellants were the plaintiffs in the said suit.

2. The suit was instituted challenging an order of cancellation of land settlement dated 09.03.2012 pertaining to 15 persons including the two appellants / plaintiffs. As per the facts projected in the plaint, the land in question which is at Lawipu was initially sought to be allotted to certain volunteers of the Mizo National Front after the said organization had joined the mainstream in the year 1989. Though the process was on, due to certain technical issues, the land to the said volunteers were re-allotted at Maubawk Village Council instead of Lawipu Village Council where the present subject land is situated. According to the plaintiffs / appellants, since the land at Lawipu remained vacant, there was a decision to allot the land to certain landless people. As per the said decision, 35 nos. of beneficiaries were selected and the present appellants were amongst the said 35 nos. of beneficiaries.

3. It is the case of the appellants / plaintiffs that by following the due procedure, the land was allotted to the landless persons including them and thereafter, house passes were issued on payment of the prescribed fees. Thereafter, the said passes were converted to permanent Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) and accordingly, there was also a publication in the Official Gazette. After such process, the respondent no. 7 claimed that he had Periodic Patta over the plot of land. After making such claim, the matter was sought to be settled by the Revenue authorities and a General Report (Exhibit P-4) was also made. However, the authorities acted on the complaint raised by the respondent no. 7 and accordingly initiated a process for cancellation by issuing a show-cause notice to the appellants on 06.02.2012. Thereafter, the cancellation order was passed on 09.03.2012 which was the subject matter of challenge in the civil suit.

4. The State respondents, who were arrayed as defendant nos. 1 to 6 had filed written statement disputing the claim and similarly the defendant nos. 7 to 21 had also filed written statement disputing the claim of the appellants / plaintiffs. After such exchange of pleadings, the issues were framed on 03.05.2016 followed by the evidence. The plaintiffs had adduced evidence through 4 nos. of witnesses whereas the State respondents did not adduce any evidence. However, the defendant no. 7 had adduced evidence after consideration of the respective versions of the contesting parties and the materials on record including the evidence, the impugned judgment and decree has been passed on 14.12.2021 dismissing the suit which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

5. I have heard Shri F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the appellants. I have also heard Ms. H. Lalthanchama, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Ms. Lalawmpuii Fanai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 to 21.

6. Shri Lalengliana, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present challenge is mainly on two counts. Firstly, there were no materials to come to a finding that the allotment of the land in favor of the plaintiffs were mistakenly done or that the land of the defendants were affected. Secondly, it is contended that the procedure adopted for cancellation is illegal, unreasonable and liable to be interfered with.

7. Elaborating on his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as a matter of policy, 35 nos. of beneficiaries were selected for allotment of lands including the present appellants at Lawipu. Pursuant to such policy decision, the codal formalities were scrupulously followed whereafter house passes we