BIAKNGHETA SAILO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM
LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-25
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on April 13,2018

Biakngheta Sailo Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MIZORAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N. Sailo, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. L.H Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. None appears for the respondent No. 5 despite service of notice.
(2.) On 13.02.2018, Court passed the following order:- "By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed appropriate relief on account of illegal occupation of his land covered by LSC No. 10/1978 (Annexure 1) with an area of 0.16 bighas, located at Zemabawk Kelpu Veng which is submitted to be under Thuampui Veng presently. According to the petitioner, he was issued the said LSC by the competent authority but however on account of certain encroachment, he and 3 (three) other similarly situated person has to approach the Civil Court by filing Civil Suit No. 1/1992. In Civil Suit, the concerned State respondents including the Boarder Road Task Force (BRTF) as well as the Village Council of Zemabawk and Thuampui Branch Y.M.A were arrayed as defendants. The Civil Suit was finally adjudicated and decreed vide Judgment & Order dated 24.02.2011 in favour of the petitioner as plaintiff alongwith 3 (three) other plaintiffs who had jointly initiated the Civil Suit. However, despite the suit having been decreed in favour of the petitioner, the respondents even during the pendency of the suit had constructed Thuampui Market-cum-Community Hall within the petitioner's land covered by LSC No. 10/1978. The petitioner upon seeking information from the respondent authorities concerned about the said construction was informed that the Thuampui Market- cum-Community Hall construction began on 05.10.2006 and completed on 22.11.2007. It was further indicated that the land where the construction was made did not belong to the Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation Department. In response to the writ petition, the respondent No. 1 to 4 have filed a consolidated affidavit-in-opposition on 02.12.2014, wherein they have taken the stand that the respondent No. 5 is in possession of the land on the strength of DPL MISL No. 19/1997. It is also the stand of the respondent No. 1 to 4 in their affidavit that prior to the construction of the Market-cum-Community Hall, there was an existing Thuampui Y.M.A Community Hall. Upon demolition of the earlier Thuampui, Community Hall, the Market-cum-Community Hall came to be constructed by the Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation Department. It has also been contended by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the petitioner has remained silent over the years when the construction was undertaken and therefore, he has waived his right of ownership over the plot of land in question. I have considered the submission advance by the learned counsels for the parties. Although the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a consolidated affidavit, the stand taken in the affidavit does not explain as to how the Revenue authorities have issued the certificate of land lease in favour of the respondent No. 5 during existence of the LSC No. 10/1978. In that view of the matter before proceeding further with the adjudication of the writ petition, I am of the considered view that the Revenue Department should file a detailed affidavit, explaining as to how the land lease has been issued to the respondent No. 5, while the same plot of land was already issued to the petitioner way back in the year 1978. Such affidavit shall be filed by the respondent No. 2 positively on or before 14th of March, 2018."
(3.) Thereafter, the case was listed on 14.03.2018 and 28.03.2018 wherein time was sought by the learned counsels appearing for the State respondents. Today, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the Departmental Land Lease i.e., DPL MISL No. 19/1997 was issued in favour of the respondent No. 5, as the Revenue Department was not aware of the dispute raised by the writ petitioner claiming ownership of the land in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.