R. Lalthanpari Vs Laltlanpari

[2.] This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the Order dated 25.07.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) – II, Aizawl in Eviction Suit No. 3 of 2023 by which the learned Trial Court has directed the appellant to vacate the suit land covered by LSC No. 37 of 1978 within a period

¶15

Page No.# 2/6

¶16

of three months from the date of the Order. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the Eviction Suit was filed, a notice was issued to the opposite party/defendant fixing 30.05.2023 as the date for submission of written statement. After several dates, the written statement was filed by the defendant on 13.02.2024. A preliminary hearing was conducted on 25.04.2024, on which date, the Court upon hearing the parties, found it to be a fit case for conducting spot verification by the Land Revenue & Settlement Department. Accordingly, a direction for making a verification was issued to the Director of Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Government of Mizoram asking the said authority to make suitable arrangement for spot verification in order to ascertain the exact location of the plaintiff’s LSC as well as the LSC of the defendant and to find out as to whether the LSC’s of the plaintiff and the defendant are encroaching each other or not and to submit a verification report on or before the next Court date. Accordingly, 14.06.2024 was fixed as the date for submission of spot verification report. On the date fixed, the Court after receiving the spot verification report fixed 25.07.2024 for hearing the parties. Accordingly on that day, the suit was disposed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent which is now put to challenge through the instant appeal.

¶17

[3.] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court did not give any opportunity to the appellant to examine the verification report and thereafter, to rebut the same, if so necessary by examining the surveyor who conducted the spot verification. Instead, the learned Trial Court, solely on the basis of the verification report, proceeded to decide the matter in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned order of eviction dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court should be set aside.

¶18

Page No.# 3/6

¶19

[4.] Per contra, Mr. K. Khamthianmanga, learned counsel for the sole respondent submits that the appellant agreed to the spot verification and was also present on the spot on that day when the verification was done. The appellant therefore took part in the verification process and was fully aware about the result of the verification. As such, the ground taken that the appellant was not given due opportunity to examine the verification report is not tenable. He submits that the suit land belongs to his father, Mr. S. Thansanga, who had started some construction on the suit land but could not complete the same. He therefore permitted the appellant/respondent to make the construction and occupy the land for thirty years. Since then, thirty years has now lapsed, and therefore, the appellant/respondent who is now occupying the suit land was requested to vacate the suit land but as she did not agree to the same, the eviction suit was filed. The learned counsel also submits that as per the Land Settlement Certificate annexed to the Eviction Suit, the same is issued to the plaintiff/respondent’s father Mr. S. Thansanga, and her father’s name is shown as Mr. L. T. Ngura. Whereas, in the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant, the Land Settlement Certificate is issued in the name of Thansanga where the father’s name of Thansanga, is shown as Namduna. There is also no similarity in respect of the area of the land i.e. 245.23 square meters as shown which defers from the LSC issued in favour of the plaintiff’s father for an area of 199.16 square meters, which is annexed to the Eviction Suit. The learned counsel therefore submits that under the facts and circumstances the appellant cannot have any claim on the land of the respondent/plaintiff, which she has inherited from her father by way of a Heirship certificate.

¶20

[5.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

¶21

Page No.# 4/6

¶22

the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. What has been noticed by this Court is that after the appellant had submitted her written statement against the Eviction Suit, preliminary hearing was conducted by the learned Trial Court on 25.04.2024, wherein, the learned Trial Court found it expedient to direct the conduct of verification by the Revenue authorities. It was accordingly ordered and following the submission of the verification report, the matter was fixed for hearing and on the date fixed and the Eviction Suit was disposed of in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The materials on record does not indicate that the parties concerned were given a copy of the verification report and thereafter, given an opportunity to rebut the same. Although, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the parties had appeared on that date when the verification was done and that the appellant was aware of the results but the fact remains that verification was done on 22.05.2024 and the verification report was thereafter prepared and submitted on 24.05.2024 by the detailed Surveyor to the Director of Land Revenue & Settlement Department. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the parties ought to have been given the opportunity to rebut or otherwise the observations and findings given in the verification report before a conclusion was reached by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 25.07.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court, wherein, the Court has recorded that verification report was submitted before the Court on 07.06.2024. However, a perusal of the Order-sheet of the learned Trial Court goes to show that the spot verification report was received by the Court on 14.06.2024 and thereafter, a date was fixed for hearing i.e. 25.07.2024. Be that as it may, this Court is not on the date on which the verification report was submitted but concerned with the fact that the parties

¶23

Page No.# 5/6

¶24

concerned have not been given due opportunity to rebut or otherwise the verification report as projected by the appellant. Moreover, the records also does not reveal that such an opportunity was given except that a hearing date was fixed immediately after the report was submitted to the Court.

¶25

[6.] Another aspect of the matter, which has drawn the attention of this Court is with regard to the variation as regards the Land Settlement Certification presented by the plaintiff/respondent and the appellant/defendant. As already stated hereinabove, there is no similarity in the registration number of the Land Settlement Certificate, the father of the registered LSC owner and also the area of the land. All that appears to be similar is with regard to the name of the registered owner i.e., Thansanga, which however is again registered as S. Thansanga in respect of the LSC produced by the plaintiff respondent. This aspect of the matter also requires to be considered by the learned Trial Court by giving due opportunity to the parties concerned.

¶26

[7.] Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to remand the matter back to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In other words, it is provided herein that the parties to the suit should be given proper and effective opportunity to rely or rebut upon the spot verification report submitted by the surveyor concerned apart from any other materials which they wish to rely upon. The learned Trial Court shall also consider and take a decision as regards the differences found in the two LSCs presented by the rival parties in accordance with law.

¶27

[8.] In the result, the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed in Eviction Suit No.3 of 2023 is hereby set aside. Since both the parties are represented before this Court they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court (Court of Civil Judge Senior Division-II, Aizawl) on 02.04.2026. Until such time, the status-

¶28

Page No.# 6/6

¶29

quo order passed by this Court on 28.03.2025 in I.A.(C) No.48/2025 arising out of the instant appeal shall be maintained. On appearance of the parties, the Court shall proceed in accordance with law as observed and directed herein above and make an endeavour to consider and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. The parties will be at liberty to pray for appropriate interim order/orders by filing appropriate application. In the event of filing of such application, the learned Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass orders as may be considered necessary.

¶30

[9.] With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Registry to send back the TCR.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

R. Lalthanpari v. Laltlanpari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Lalthanpari v. Laltlanpari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

All Itanagar Tata Mobile and Carriage Tempo Welfare Association Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Dammo Riba Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Boken Kino Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Sh. Ngurdailova and 2 Ors. Vs The State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.

Smt. L.H. Lallawmi and 21 Ors. Vs The Union of India and 9 Ors.

Sh. Lalthavela Vs Smt. Ramengzuali and 2 Ors.