Allowed

State of Mizoram and 5 Ors. v. v Thangchuanga

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2022RFA/23/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a judgment awarding compensation for non-renewal of a mining permit. The High Court noted the permit was refused due to public road construction but held the respondent failed to prove an enforceable right to compensation, reversing the lower court's decree.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 passed by Sr. Civil Judge–I, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 16/2008 set aside.

State of Mizoram and 5 Ors. Vs v Thangchuanga — Mining and Natural Resources | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/11

¶2

GAHC030000052014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : RFA/23/2014

¶5

State of Mizoram and 5 Ors Chief Secretary, GOM

¶6

VERSUS V Thangchuanga ITI Veng, Aizawl

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Zoramchhana (Addl.AG/GA, Mizoram)

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr L H Lianhrima Sr. Adv

¶9

Linked Case : CMAppl./188/2014

¶10

State of Mizoram and 5 Others Aizawl Mizoram

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

V. Thangchuanga Aizawl Mizoram

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Zoramchhana (Addl.AG/GA Mizoram) Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. L H Lianhrima

¶14

Page No.# 2/11

¶15

Sr.Adv.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Date : 03-06-2022

¶19

Heard Ms. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the

¶20

appellants and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶21

2] This is an appeal under section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act,2005 r/w section 151 CPC for setting aside the impugned Judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 passed by Sr. Civil Judge –I , Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 16/2008.

¶22

3] The brief facts of the case is the respondent is the proprietor of T.C. Stone Work Located at I.T.I. Veng, Aizawl covered by 5 (five) LSC’s bearing No.104402/01/21 of 1999, 104402/01/22 of 1999, 104402/01/24 of 1999, 104402/01/99 of 2000, 104402/01/369 of 2005, and he has been extracting stone from his Quarry for his livelihood vide Registration No.580103129 dated 06.04.1998 which was renewed from time to time till he received a letter from appellant No.5, Joint Director, Geology and Mining Wing to stop extracting of stone from his quarry stating that his application of renewal/extension of Minor Mineral permit was rejected vide letter No.D.13021/1/2006/DTE-IND(GM) Vol-III, dated 12^th Oct. 2006. Aggrieved

¶23

Page No.# 3/11

¶24

by the letter dated 12^th October, 2006, the respondent filed the Civil Suit No.16/2008 before the Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl District, Aizawl claiming of rental compensation amounting to Rs.74,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of cancellation of quarry permit and also Rs.50,000/- on account of mental suffering, etc.

¶25

4] The appellants in their written statement objected on the grounds that the respondent is not the legal/rightful owner of the 5 (five) LSC’s and none of the said LSC’s had been mutated in his name nor have any power of attorney from the respective LSC’s holder for claiming compensation. The appellants denied issuance of Minor Mineral permit No.001/1/105-45 of 2005 dated 30.8.2005 to other 4 (four) LSC’s except the area covered by LSC No.104402/01/24 of 1999. That the respondent deposited a sum of Rs.600/- only for the quarry royalty and the validity of the royalty permit was only 3 months w.e.f. September 2005 till November, 2005. The respondent failed to renew the permit within a stipulated period. As such, the appellants could not be responsible for the fault committed by the respondent. The mining permit was granted for a period of 3 (three) months within the area covered by LSC No.104402/01/24 of 1999 but when the assessment was made the respondent had misguided the official by showing to have much wider area including the 4 (four) LSC’s this has resulted in over assessment of the reserved rock.

¶26

5] On the basis of pleadings of both parties only 2 (two) issues were framed on 5.1.2009;

¶27

Page No.# 4/11

¶28

Whether the suit is maintainable or not ?

¶29

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him or not. If so, to what extend?

¶30

The above 2 (two) issues were decided in favour of the respondent and the trial court passed it’s impugned Judgment & order and decree for Rs.49,86,670/-to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff with interest @ 6% from the date of filing the suit. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Order dated 21.8.2014 in Civil Suit No.16/2008 passed by Senior Civil Judge-I, Aizawl District, hence this appeal.

¶31

6] Ms. Mary L. Khiangte learned Govt. Advocate for the appellants submits

¶32

that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law in as much as Rule 1 (3) of Order XIV of CPC is overlooked to the effect that the State appellants in their written statement have objected on the locus standi of the respondents. But issues were not framed as to whether the respondents have the locus standi to file a suit? The Ld. Trial Court erred in fact in as much as not considering the fact that the mining permit was applied against the land of Lalthankhumi covered under LSC No. 104402/01/24 of 1999 The respondent is to prove his enforceable rights to file a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The principle that it is for the plaintiff to establish his title over the suit property and has relied upon the decision of the Apex court in Anil Rishi V/s Gurbaksh Singh reported in 2006 (5) SCC 558 Para 9 and Rangamal VS. Kuppuswami reported in 2011 (12) SCC 220H.Siddiqui (Dead) by LRS Vs A. Ramalingam 2011 (4) SCC 240 Para 20 to 21 in

¶33

Page No.# 5/11

¶34

7] The learned Govt. Advocate also submits that as per Section 101 of the Evidence Act the burden of the prove lies on the plaintiff to prove he have legal/enforceable rights over the land. In this case, mere fact that the registered owner of LSC’s are the relatives of the respondent doesn’t mean that he have legal right over the land.

¶35

8] The learned Govt. Advocate further submits that the mining permit was given at the time by the authority concerned to the respondent against LSC No. 104402/01/24 of 1999 belonging to Lalthankhumi. So, presuming that the respondent is eligible to claim compensation, he can claim only against the area covered by the said LSC only and not against the 4 LSCs. The LSC 104402/01/24 1999 belonging of Lalthankhumi is having area of 0.34 bigha. While the respondent have in his crossexamination stated that the area of his quarry is about 8 bighas. Also the estimate cannot be considered as valid since it is prepared on the request of the respondent without the presence of interested parties and in the absence of written authority by the concerned officials.

¶36

9] The learned Govt. Advocate also submits that the road constructed is for the best interest of the general public at large and the vested interest of the private individual cannot overwrite such general interest. From the documents submitted in the trial court the land value of Lalthankhumi against which mining permit was issued is Rs. 30,020/- only as on dt. 03.05.1995 and the question of paying Rs. 49,86,670/to the respondent as directed by the Ld. Trial Court does not arise as the quantum of

¶37

Page No.# 6/11

¶38

compensation should be based on complete concrete findings of the parties concerned and a just compensation is not given or awarded. Therefore, the appellant prays for setting aside for impugned of judgment and order dated 21.08.2014 passed by Sr.CJ1, Aizawl District CS No. 16 of 2018.

¶39

10] Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that though the mentioned LSC’s bearing No.104402/01/21 of 1999, 104402/01/22 of 1999, 104402/01/24 of 1999, 104402/01/99 of 2000, 104402/01/369 of 2005 are not against the name of the respondent, however, all the LSC holders are the wife and children of the respondent who are still dependent upon him and therefore, the Stone quarry within the said LSCs can be said to belong to the respondent.

¶40

11] The appellants have not denied that the reasons why the Minor Mineral permit of the respondent was cancelled was due to construction of the road Aizawl– Thenzawl-Lunglei. This is also clear in the reply made by the Project Director vide letter No. MPWD-24/PIU/LA/PH-11/06/91 Dated 23^rd May, 2007, Ext. P-7 in the Trial Court which mentions that “We have received your letter dated 17.2.2007 addressed to the Adviser to Chief Minister (Technical) where you have sought for compensation amounting to Rs.74,80,000/- on account of closing down of your quarry, where stones are extracted. The Mizoram Govt. has constructed Aizawl Bypass under the supervision of PWD. As your quarry would soon be detrimental to our road

¶41

Page No.# 7/11

¶42

construction work thereby destroying it, the Quarry Permit Issue department has

¶43

decided not to renew your Quarry Permit after careful consideration as enclosed in Annexture - 1”.

¶44

12] The learned senior counsel also submits that earnings the respondent made from the stone quarry was his main source of his likelihood and he infact left his job as a Driver in P.W.D., Govt. of Mizoram. The evidence of plaintiff/respondent witness Shri H. Siama and Shri Rochungnunga shows that both of them had worked in the Stone quarry of the respondent and have deposed that the respondent used to earn over Rs.1,00,000/- every month from the quarry.

¶45

13] The learned senior counsel further submits that the calculation of the estimate value of the quarry made by Mr. J. Chamliana, Geophysicist Junior, Geology & Mining Wing is based on the spot verification of this Stone quarry belonging to the respondent and that he has correctly estimated the value to be Rs.74,80,000/-, which was also done with the knowledge of the senior authority in the department. That even though the said road Aizawl-Thenzawl-Lunglei does not run through the stone quarry of the respondent since the main livelihood of the respondent has been taken away he is entitled to be compensated by the authorities responsible for the loss & suffering caused to him by refusing the renewal of his Stone quarry permit.

¶46

14] Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both the parties and on perusal of the documents on record, this court finds that it is

¶47

an admitted fact that the respondent is the proprietor of T.C. Stone Work Located at

¶48

Page No.# 8/11

¶49

I.T.I. Veng, Aizawl., and he has been extracting stone from his Quarry vide Registration No.580103129 dated 06.04.1998. I find that though the quarry covered by 5 (five) LSC’s bearing No.104402/01/21 of 1999, 104402/01/22 of 1999, 104402/01/24 of 1999, 104402/01/99 of 2000, 104402/01/369 of 2005, the said LSCs were not against his name, but were against the names of his wife and children who have not challenged his ownership over the quarry. However, it is seen that in the letter dated 12^th October 2006, Exhibited as Ext P-3 in the trial court, the Joint Director, Geology & Mining Wing, Mizoram had issued notice to the respondent to discontinue extraction of stone at quarry, informing him that the validity of Royalty Permit of his quarry permit No. Minor Mineral permit No.001/1/105-45 of 2005 dated 30.8.2005 was between Sept/05 to Nov./05. That the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 600/- for quarry royalty and the validity of the royalty permit was only 3 months w.e.f. September 2005 till November, 2005.The decision was taken not to renew his permit since his quarry fell within the proposed construction of World bank road. Aggrieved by this letter the respondent had written a letters addressed to the Director (PIU) World Bank, to the Advisor to Chief Minister Technical (Exhibited as ExtP-4 and 5 in the trial court) and the Project Director, World bank (PIU), Mizoram State road Project, Govt. of Mizoram but his request was regretted on the grounds that the Government has constructed Aizawl By-Pass under the supervision of PWD and as his quarry would soon be detrimental to the road construction work thereby destroying it. The department had on careful scrutiny of the Governments initiative and after careful consideration of his renewal application had decided not to renew his Permit.

¶50

15] It is seen that, rule 10 of the Mizoram Minor Mineral Concession Rules

¶51

Page No.# 9/11

¶52

2000, provides that Mining lease or Mining permit may be granted for a specific period which is to be renewed or refused for reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus, I find that the Joint Director, Geology & Mining Wing, Mizoram in issuing notice to the respondent to discontinue extraction of stone at quarry wherein explaining that the decision taken not to renew his permit was due to the reason that his quarry fell within the proposed construction of World Bank road, was acting within what was permitted under the rules. The defendant witness Mr. K Sawmvela, Director, PIU, PWD, Govt. of Mizoram has also stated that the respondent obtained mining permit only for a period of 3 (three) months August –November 2005 and that too in respect of only one LSC.

¶53

16] On perusal of the evidence of Plaintiff witness PW2, who is one of the land owners near the quarry of the respondent, he has stated that he has received compensation since the construction of Aizawl-Thenzawl-Lunglei road went through his land, but has further stated that this road did not go through the land of the respondent. The plaintiff witness PW3 has also stated that his land is though similarly situated with the respondent, however, his land was acquired by the Appellant state Government vide award no.1 of 2013.I thus find that the respondent cannot be placed in the same footing as PW2 & PW3 and compensation granted to them for land acquisition cannot be awarded to the respondent when his landed area has not been acquired by the World Bank for the construction of Aizawl-Thenzawl-Lunglei road.

¶54

17] I also fail to understand how the respondent can be compensated on

¶55

Page No.# 10/11

¶56

calculating the value of the respondent/Pu Thangchuanga’s Quarry when the land/quarry itself has not been acquired by the appellant. Moreover the calculation or assessment made by J.Chamliana, Geophysicist Junior, geology & Mining Wing itself is unacceptable for the reason that the mining permit was given to the respondent, against LSC No. 104402/01/24 of 1999 belonging to Lalthankhumi, as per the document available on record. The estimate value of the quarry of Rs.74,80,000/appear to have been made covering the areas of all the five LSCs. Thus, the estimate value of the quarry of Rs.74,80,000/- is found unsustainable. Moreover, from the evidence adduced and as admitted by the respondent himself on his cross examination as plaintiff witness, that the LSC’s are not acquired by the appellant and are still under the possession of the respondent and his wife and sons. I thus find that the respondent has the liberty to utilise the land expect for mining purposes which, if continued, would soon be detrimental to the road construction work thereby destroying it as explained in the reason for not renewing the mining permit.

¶57

18] In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (through K.M. Chinnappa) v. Union of India and others [(2002 (10) SCC 606, the Apex Court observed that “it cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests. Where the commercial venture or enterprise would bring in results which are far more

¶58

Page No.# 11/11

¶59

useful for the people, difficulty of a small number of people has to be bypassed. The comparative hardships have to be balanced and the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the people has to get primacy over comparatively lesser hardship’.”

¶60

19] In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasoning, I find that the principle of “salus populi est suprema lex" (welfare of the people is paramount) would aptly apply in this case. I am thus of the considered opinion that the respondent have not established a legal enforceable right to claim compensation and this court find it fit to set aside the impugned Judgment & order and Decree dated 21.08.2014 passed by Sr. Civil Judge–I, Aizawl in Civil Suit No. 16/2008.

¶61

20] RFA No. 23 of 2014 accordingly is allowed and stands disposed of.

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

Comparing Assistant

State of Mizoram and 5 Ors. v. v Thangchuanga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Mizoram and 5 Ors. v. v Thangchuanga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. K. Lalchhuanliana Vs Sh. Lalrammawia and 5 Ors.

State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. Vs R. Zathanga and 36 Ors.

State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. Vs Lalhmangaihi and 9 Ors.

F. Vanlalhruaia Vs T. Vanlalruata and 3 Ors.

Krosmawii Vs State of Mizoram

Vankhawneiha Vs State of Mizoram