LexJ. THANSIAMA versus STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 445 J. THANSIAMA v. STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3536 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 08, 2015 [RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] A B Limitation Act, 1963 - Applicability to the State of Mizoram - Suit for declaration of title by appellant - Trial court held that the 1963 Act not applicable to bar the suit of C the appellant - However, the High Court held that the 1963 Act was applicable to the State of Mizoram, thus, suit filed by appellant dismissed as time barred - On appeal, held: Notification dated 14.03.1966 issued by the Governor of 0 Assam excluding the operation of the Limitation Act from the tribal areas of the State of Assam ceased to be applicable to the Mizo District once the areas therein no long formed a part of the tribal areas of Assam and, instead, became a part of the tribal areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram w.e.f. E 21.1.1972 - Thus, the Notification dated 14.3.1966 not applicable to the Union Territory and the successor State of Mizoram by virtue of s. 24 of the General Clauses Act - Provisions of the General Clauses Act cannot have any application to the instant case - Order passed by the High F Court upheld- General Clauses Act, 1897 - North-Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act, 1971 - ss. 71, 77, 79. The State of Meghalaya vs. U. William Mynsong 1987 (2) GLR 221; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. G Shillong City Bus Syndicate & Ors. 1996 (8) SCC 7 41: 1996 (3) SCR 942 - referred to. 445 H 446 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS Case Law Reference 1987 (2) GLR 221 1996 (3) SCR 942 referred to. referred to. [2015] 9 S.C.R. Para 10 Para 11 B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. c 3536 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2005 in R.F.A. No 2 of 2003 of the High Court of Gauhati. Abhishek Singh, K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya for the Appellant. lndu Malhotra, Kiran Bhardwaj, Varun Singh, Tanvir Nayar, D B.V. Balaram Das, Pragyan Sharma, Shikhar Garg, Siddhartha Singh, P.V. Yogeswaran forthe Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANJAN GOGOi, J.1.The Gauhati High Court by the E impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2005 has held the Limitation Act, 1963 to be applicable to the State of Mizoram. Consequential to the said conclusion of the High Court, the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of title etc. was dismissed as being time barred. This was in reversal of the F decree passed by the learned Trial Court on merits after holding that the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable to bar the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. 2. The High Court in a very exhaustive and illuminating G judgment has traced the history of the creation of the present day State of Mizoram. Equally, the laborious arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have thrown further light into the evolution of the present day State. However, we do not consider it necessary to burden this order by referring H to the said details except to record what would be strictly J. THANSIAMA v. STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS. 44 7 [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] required for the purposes of the present adjudication, namely, A that the present day State of Mizoram was earlier known as Lushai Hills District and .formed part of the original undivided State of Assam. The said district was included in the list of tribal areas of the State of Assam under Part-A of the table . appended to Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. ·s Thereafter, Lushai Hills District was renamed as Mizo District by the Lushai Hills District (Change of Name) Act, 1954. A consequential change in Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution was also made. 3. Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule as it was at the point of time relevantto the case [on 14.3.1966 or prior to the changes brought in by North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971] read as follows : "'Tribal Areas 20. ( 1) The areas specified in Parts A and 8 of the table below shall be the tribal areas within the State of Assam. c D E (2) The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District shall comprise the territories which before the commencement of this Constitution were known as the Khasi States and the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District, excluding any areas for the time being comprised within the cantonment and F municipality of Shillong but, including so much of the area comprised within the municipality of Shillong as formed part of the Khasi State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.