IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the entitlement to rental compensation for unauthorized land occupation, ruling that previous payments to others do not bar similar claims, emphasizing the inapplicability of the Limitation Act in this context.

JUDGMENT :

(Nelson Sailo, J.)

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Ministry of Home Affairs.

[2.] This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Judgment & Order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 61/2023 wherein, the instant writ appellants have been held liable to pay rental compensation to the respondent No. 4/writ petitioner (hereafter referred to as writ petitioner) as calculated by the District Collector concerned.

[3.] It is the case of the writ petitioner that she is the owner of land located at Thuampui Helipad area Aizawl covered by Land Settlement Certificate (LSC). Since 1996, the land of the petitioner has been occupied by the security forces but the acquisition proceeding of their land was initiated only on 11.06.2018 under the relevant provisions of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013 (Act of 2013). According to the petitioner, although she has been awarded compensation for acquisition of her land but no rental compensation has been paid to her for the unauthorized occupation of the security forces prior to the acquisition of her land.

[4.] The writ petition was decided on contest by the parties and the learned Single Judge by taking it into account the Apex Court decision in R.L. Jain (D) by LRS Vs. DDA & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 79 allowed the writ petition by directing the assessment for rental compensation and the respondent authorities concerned to pay the petitioner the assessed compensation for occupation of the land. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants are before this Court through the instant appeal.

[5.] The appellants have taken three (3) grounds for filing the instant appeal and they have been abstracted as below:-

“A. For that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the names of the petitioner was not reflected in the payee's receipt for the periods from 1.9.1986 to 31.12.1997, 1.1.1998 to 31.12.2005 and 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2007. As such, the judgment and order dated 16.11.2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

B. For that, in Paragraph Nos. 3 to 9 of Chapter II Section 4 to 7 of the Govt. of Mizoram, "Collection of Acts, Regulation of Rules" operated by Revenue Department in connection with Revenue Administration compiled by Directorate of Land Revenue and Settlement, it is clearly mentioned that the Filed Staff appointed by the Executive Committee or the Chief Controlling Authority has to survey the land applied for temporary or permanent allotment through Village Council President concerned with his recommendation. It is also mentioned in Paragraph No.9 that the Filed Staff also has to submit their reports as to whether the land is available for the settlement under Patta and free from encumbrances. As such, the allotment of LSC to the petitioner during 1996 violated the above mentioned Act, Regulation and Rules if the land-in-question was under the occupation of Army, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India since 1.9.1986 till date. When the land in question is under the occupation of the Army, Ministry of Defence, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot issue LSC to the respondent No.4. As such, the said judgment and order dated 16.11.2023 is liable to be set aside and quashed.

C. For that, LSC was issued to the respondentNo.4/petitioner in 1996. If the land was in occupation of the Armed Forces, Land Settlement Certificates against the said land could not have been issued without the knowledge and consent of Union of India. The learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect. The learned Single Judge, while passing the said judgment and order dated 16.11.