S. Serto, J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. H.Lalmalsawmi for the appellant No.1 and Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant No.2. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) This is an appeal directed against the judgment & decree dated 01.09.2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge I, Aizawl District, in Civil Suit No. 12/2010.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows;
In the year 1996, the Director of Industries, Geology & Mining Wing, Govt. of Mizoram, vide his letter dated 26.09.1996, informed the father and predecessor of the appellants that shell limestone deposits have been found in his land near Tuirial Bridge and the Government of Mizoram is interested to exploit the same for manufacturing shell limestone tiles, therefore, a meeting in that connection was being held on 01.10.19996 and 11.10.1996 at the Official chamber of Director of Industries and he is requested to attend the meeting with necessary documents in respect of the land. Thereafter, by another letter dated 15.10.1996, the Director of Industries, Geology & Mining Wing, Govt. of Mizoram, requested the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl to assess the compensation amount to be paid to the appellants for his land, within which shell limestone deposit have been found. As per the request, the D.C, Aizawl made his detail assessment of the compensation to be paid to the appellants and forwarded the same to the Director of Industries, Geology & Mining Wing, Govt. of Mizoram, vide his letter dated 09.03.1998. The D.C, Aizawl in his assessment work out a sum of Rs. 4,72,718/- as the compensation amount to be paid, Rs. 1,18,487/- for the trees that were growing in the garden and Rs. 2,10,423/- for the land that would need to be acquired. It transpires from the documents and from the submission of the learned counsels that after several meetings were held, the respondents entered in the land of the appellants for the purpose of exploration of the limestone in the year 1996, however, the father of the appellants was not paid the amount assessed by the D.C, Aizawl, thereby compelling him to approached the Civil Court by filing Civil Suit being No. 12/2010 praying as follows;
"(a) Let a decree be passed directing the defendants for payment of Rs. 4,42,718/- with interest at the rate of 20% per annum for damages of fruit bearing trees, teak trees etc to the Plaintiff.
(b) Let the decree be passed directing the defendants for rental compensation at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square feet with effect from the year, 1995.
(c) Let the decree be passed directing the defendants for a lumpsum payment of Rs. 100 lakhs for acquisition of the landed area covered by LSC No. G. 69 of 1989 to the Plaintiff.
(d) Let the decree be passed directing the defendants for payment of Rs. 2 lakhs for damages caused to crops and fruit bearing trees etc to the Plaintiff.
(e) Let the decree be passed directing that the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of mental suffering, agony and unnecessary harassment of the Plaintiff.
(f) Let the cost of the suit be decreed in favour of the Plaintiff against the defendants.
(g) Let any other relief to which the Plaintiff is entitled according to Justice, Equity and Good Conscience be decreed in favour of the Plaintiff.";