In the Court of Senior Civil Judge Lunglei District :: Lunglei, Mizoram
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Page no. 1 of 14. IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE LUNGLEI DISTRICT :: LUNGLEI, MIZORAM CIVIL SUIT NO. 14 OF 2010 Plaintiffs: 1. Smt. T. Thangkimi D/o T. Rothuama Theiriat, Lunglei 2. Sh. Saithangpuia Sailo S/o Lalhrima Sailo Venglai, Lunglei 3. Sh. Sailothanga Sailo S/o Liana Rahsi Veng, Lunglei 4. Sh. Victor Zokhuma S/o Selella Ralte Dawrpui Vengthar, Aizawl 5. Sh. Saikunga Sailo S/o Lalphunga Sailo Chanmari, Aizawl 6. Sh. Lalhrima Sailo S/o Vanthuama Sailo Venglai, Lunglei By Advocates : 1. Mr. C. Zokhuma 2. Mr. R. Lalrengpuia Versus Defendants: 1. Secretary to the Govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs 2. The State of Mizoram Represented by the Chief Secretary Mizoram, Aizawl 3. The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Civil Suit No. 14 of 2010, Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District :: Lunglei Page no. 2 of 14. Land, Revenue & Settlement Department Mizoram, Aizawl 4. The Director Land, Revenue & Settlement Department Govt. of Mizoram Mizoram, Aizawl 4. The Asst. Settlement Officer-I Land, Revenue & Settlement Department Govt. of Mizoram Lunglei, Mizoram 5. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector Lunglei District, Lunglei 6. The Engineering Project (India) Ltd. (EPIL) Tlabung, Mizoram By Advocates : For the defendant no. 1 : For the defendants 2-5 : Ms. H. Lalruatfeli AGA For the defendant no. 6 : 1. Mr. S.N. Meitei 2. Mr. Raymond Lalbiakzama Date of Arguments : 23-02-2016 Date of Judgment & Order : 29-02-2016 BEFORE Dr. H.T.C. Lalrinchhana, MJS Senior Civil Judge Lunglei District: Lunglei JUDGMENT & ORDER BRIEF STORY OF THE CASE Plaintiff no. 1 is the holder of Periodic Patta No. 101 of 2004 with an area of 30 bighas located at Tlabung village elaka for a period of 5 years issued on Dt. 13.8.2004, Plaintiff no. 2 is the holder of Periodic Patta No. 31 of 2004 with an area of 30 bighas located at Tlabung village elaka for a period of 5 years issued on Dt. 13.8.2004, Plaintiff no. Civil Suit No. 14 of 2010, Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District :: Lunglei Page no. 3 of 14. 3 is the holder of Periodic Patta No. 30 of 2004 with an area of 30 bighas located at Tlabung village elaka for a period of 5 years issued on Dt. 13.8.2004, Plaintiff no. 4 is the holder of Periodic Patta No. 27 of 2004 with an area of 30 bighas located at Tlabung village elaka for a period of 5 years issued on Dt. 13.8.2004, Plaintiff no. 5 is the holder of Periodic Patta No. 26 of 2004 with an area of 30 bighas located at Tlabung village elaka for a period of 5 years issued on Dt. 13.8.2004, Plaintiff no. 6 is the holder of Periodic Patta No. 25 of 2004 with an area of 30 bighas located at Tlabung village elaka for a period of 5 years issued on Dt. 13.8.2004. By Notification Dt. 15Th Nov., 2006, land acquisition proceedings for Indo - Bangla Border Fencing was processed by the defendants. Although inquired the matter by the defendants to the authority concerned, they were replied that their lands would not be affected but for doing the actual work for the said Indo-Bangla- Border Fencing, but their lands were affected/damaged in actual work although developed their suit land by cultivation. Thus, plaintiffs prayed the followings:- (i) an order to conduct joint spot verification and to ascertain whether the lands of the plaintiffs were damaged/likely to be damaged due to the operation/construction of Indo-Bangla- Border Fencing (ii) If the plaintiffs lands were to be effected/damaged, then to assess compensation likely to be entitled by the plaintiffs by defendant no. 6 I.e District Collector, Lunglei District- Lunglei who has the power in this regard (iii) to stay the operation/construction of Indo-Bangla- Border Fencing between Mauzam-Tipperghat within the lands of the plaintiffs till the said relief(s) are honored/fulfilled (iv) any other relief(s) as deem fit and proper. 2. The defendants 2-6 in their joint written statements contended that plaintiffs did not utilize their land and did not even know the exact location of their respective lands before Mr. K. Lalchhandama, Surveyor indicated the location of their lands to them in the later part of 2008. Without spot verification, they could not ascertain whether the lands of the plaintiffs would be affected or not and the plaintiffs even do not know the exact location of their lands. On enquiry, the instant fencing road passes through the lands of the plaintiff on western corner about 30m-50m only but P. Patta do not confer any rights to claim the value of land as mere lessees and were not entitled compensation as per Land Acquisition Act by submitting Government Notification No. K. 12011/10/07- REV Dated Aizawl, the 29th Dec., 2009. Thus, prayed to dismiss of the suit with costs. 3. Defendant no. 7 in their written statement also stated that suit is not maintainable in its present form and style, no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs, barred by law of limitation, no locus standi and not properly verified as per CPC. Since area claimed by the plaintiffs were covered by forest land, they have no rights to claim such relief, defendant no. 7 is not liable to pay such compensation. As per Award No. 3 of 2007, names of the plaintiffs were not included and hence no grounds to claim compensation. Cause of action arose on Dt. 15/11/06 when notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and the suit is barred by law of limitation. Land passes/Pattas of the plaintiff were doubtful on their uniformity in areas etc. thus prayed to dismiss of the suit with costs. Civil Suit No. 14 of 2010, Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District :: Lunglei Page no. 4 of 14. 4. Defendant no. 1 in their written statements contended that they are not liable in the case at hand, the Directorate General of Defence Estates is the apex body of Defence Estates Organisation having its offices in various parts of the country entrusted with the task of administration of Cantonments, management of defence lands both inside and outside Cantonments, acquisition/hiring of immoveable properties for defence purposes. Thus prayed to dismiss of the suit with costs. ISSUES 5. On perusal of pleadings and on hearing of learned counsels of parties, Issues were framed on Dt. 20.08.2012 and is slightly amended towards correct findings as follows:- (1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style or not (2) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation or not. (3) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi and cause of action to file the instant suit against defendants or not. (4) Whether this court being a civil court is having subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate of the case either by sections 18 and 52 of the Land Acquisition Act or not. (5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or not. If so, to what extend. FINDINGS AND REASONS Issue No. 1 Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and style or not 6. Requisite court fees @ 5,000/- is fully paid by the plaintiff. Meanwhile, plaint is also supported by paragraph wise verification by way of affidavit simply affirming that whilst the plaint contains 14 paragraphs, plaintiffs simply verified that all paras 1-14 are true and correct to the best of their personal knowledge. Pertinently, it is the well proposition of procedure that “The parties must abide by the procedure prescribed in the Code and if they fail to do so, they have to suffer the consequences. As a matter of fact, the procedure provided in the Code for trial of the suits is extremely rational, reasonable and elaborate. Fair procedure is its hallmark. The courts of civil judicature also have to adhere to the procedure prescribed in the Code and where the Code is silent about something, the court acts according to justice, equity and good conscience. The discretion conferred upon the court by the Code has to be exercised in conformity with settled judicial principles and not in a whimsical or arbitrary or capricious manner.” as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. vs M/S M.S.S. Food Products1. 1 decided on 25th November, 2011 in connection with Civil Appeal No. 10112 of 2011 Civil Suit No. 14 of 2010, Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District :: Lunglei Page no. 5 of 14. 7. In this directions, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik2, Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court is relevant in this crux, held: "We wish, however, to observe that the verification of the affidavits produced here is defective. The body of the affidavit discloses that certain matters were known to the Secretary who made the affidavit personally. The verification however states that everything was true to the best of his information and belief. We point this out as slipshod verifications of this type might well in a given case lead to a rejection of the affidavit. Verification should invariably be modelled on the lines of Order 19, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, whether the Code applies in terms or not. And when the matter deposed to is not based on personal knowledge the sources of information should be clearly disclosed." 8.