GAHC030000752020

2025:GAU-MZ:325

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

RFA NO. 8 OF 2020

Sh. R. Laithuama (L) S/o- Salrothanga (L),

R/o- Bawktlang, Kolasib, Mizoram,

Substituted by his son Chhandamthanga.

…….Appellant

-Versus-

1. The State of Mizoram, represented by the

Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram,

Aizawl.

2. The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram,

Land Revenue and Settlement

Department, Aizawl, Mizoram.

3. The Director, Land Revenue and

Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram,

Aizawl.

4. The Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, P&E

Department, Aizawl.

5. The Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity

Department, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District,

Aizawl.

7. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib

District, Mizoram.

……. Respondent

– B E F O R E –

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI For the Appellant(s) : Mr. C. Lalramzauva, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha.

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Additional Advocate General.

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : No.

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes.

J UDGMENT & O RDER (ORAL Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present appeal calls in question the judgment & order dated 25.10.2019, passed in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2011, by the learned Senior Civil Judge II, Kolasib District, Kolasib (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), whereby the plaintiff suit for compensation of 8366 numbers of teak trees alleged to be submerged due to the Serlui „B‟ Hydroelectric Power Project was dismissed on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, the same being barred under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “LA Act, 1894”).

3. The appellant/plaintiff‟s case before the trial court was that he was originally allotted 28 bighas of garden land that contained about 9000 teak saplings planted by him, of which 8366 matured. During the construction of the Serlui „B‟ Hydro Project, the garden land was submerged. The Award No. 3 of 2004 quantified compensation only for 1734 trees. Subsequently, the Builum Inquiry Commission‟s Final Report dated 26-01-2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission‟s Report”), after field verification, found that in fact 8366 teak trees stood submerged, but 6632 trees were never assessed or compensated.

4. The appellant/plaintiff contended that since this omission was discovered only through the Commission‟s Report, and the Section 18 reference had long been barred, an independent civil cause of action arose. The respondents contended that the suit was barred because compensation disputes are exclusively referable to Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894.

5.

The trial Court accepted the respondents‟ objection and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal has been preferred.

6. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the trial court had illegally decided the issue of jurisdiction against the appellant/plaintiff.

He submits that there was no issue framed by the trial court as to whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit. He further submits that it is evident from the reading of the trial court judgment that the suit was decided to be heard on the merit after deciding the maintainability of the suit on 21.02.2013. He further submits that the omission of the 6632 teak trees, which was subsequently discovered by the Commission‟s Report after the making of the Award No. 3/2004, means the said issue therefore cannot relate back to the said Award No. 3 of 2004. He further submits that under Section 18 (1) of the LA Ac