Parlawmi vs State of Mizoram and Others

W.A. Shishak, J.—Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Madhusudhanan, learned Assistant Advocate General. This is the second lime this Petitioner has approached this Court. The matter has been shuttling back and forth between the lower court and this Court since 1991. It should be brought to an end.

The land belonging to the Petitioner was acquired by the government for the purpose of establishment of Civil Hospital. After going through procedures laid down under the law, the land was acquired and compensation was paid. The Petitioner, however, found out that the government was claiming more land than what was actually acquired. When the Petitioner erected a house on certain portion of the land not acquired by the government, according to the Petitioner, such construction was stopped at the instance of the government.

Thereafter, in 1988 the Petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 15/88, claiming right and title over certain portion of her land. By an order dated 17.5.90, the learned court of SDM (J) decided the case in favour of the Petitioner. It was however, an ex parte order. At the instance of the Respondents, the case was restored on 12.2.1991 by setting aside the earlier ex parte order dated 17.5.1990.

Against the order of restoration dated 12.2.91 this Petitioner had filed Civil Revision case No. 3/91 before this Court. The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court after hearing the parties on 5.3.92. This Court had given a direction for re-trial of the case filed in the lower court.

Upon remand, Education Department was impleaded as a party Respondent. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Education Department on the ground of maintainability. The objection was based on the fact that the dispute at band relates to land acquisition and therefore, it should be dealt with under the provision of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act of 1894. In other words, it was contended that Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to try the case; and that since the mailer concerns acquisition of land, it should be referred to Civil Court by the Collector. It seems no issues had been framed; and that the case was decided on the preliminary objection. The court upheld the objection and as such the suit was dismissed on 8.9.93. The Petitioner in this Civil Revision No. 13/93 impugns the said order dated 8.9.93 passed by the learned E.A.C. in T.S. No. 15 of 1988.

The main ground taken in the present petition is that the disputed land was not included in the land which was acquired in 1974. The Petitioner claims her right and title over the disputed portion of land which is the subject matter of dispute in title suit No. 15 of 1988. It is submitted that the Petitioner is not claiming anything more as far as the land which was already acquired in 1974 is concerned. Since the Petitioner is raising an issue of title over certain portion of land, in my view, determination of the dispute of such nature is clearly within the purview of a Civil Court. In oilier words, in my view the competent Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of title raised in the present case.

In view of the reason that I have given above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.9.93 is set aside. The learned court below shall frame necessary issues and decide the dispute of title in the present case after giving adequate opportunities to the parties. Send down the record of the lower court immediately.

This petition is disposed of.