Does a Civil Court Retain Jurisdiction to Entertain Title Suits Under Sections 96–97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, and Is a Review Permissible to Correct Errors Apparent on Record?

LawSikho
September 4, 2025
Category: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court in Review.Pet./2/2024 held that civil courts are not barred by Sections 96 and 97 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, from entertaining private-party title suits—even after a revenue settlement order—and clarified that review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may correct mistakes of fact or law, reaffirming the coordinate-bench precedent in Thanda Bala Choudhury (2002 3 GLR 473). The decision is binding on subordinate civil courts and persuasive beyond.

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	Review.Pet./2/2024 of Smt.Lalrinpuii Vs Sh. Rochungnunga and 5 Ors.
CNR	GAHC030000882024
Date of Registration	22-02-2024
Decision Date	02-09-2025
Disposal Nature	Disposed Of
Judgment Author	HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
Court	Gauhati High Court
Bench	Single-Judge
Precedent Value	Binding
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (2002 3 GLR 473)
Type of Law	Civil Procedure; Land Revenue Jurisdiction
Questions of Law	Whether Section 97(b) of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act 2013 allows civil courts to hear private‐party title suits despite the bar in Section 96. Whether a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is maintainable to correct errors of fact or law and to consider newly discovered clarifications.
Ratio Decidendi	The court found its earlier decision rested on a mistaken fact—namely that the petitioner had admitted approaching a revenue court—when in truth she filed only a departmental complaint. It also recognized that the plaint included a prayer for declaration of title, bringing the suit squarely within Section 97(b). A subsequent departmental clarification corrected a clerical error in Section 97, confirming civil courts are not barred from private‐party title suits. Applying settled review principles (error apparent on record, discovery of new matter) and the actus curiae neminem gravabit doctrine, the court held review maintainable and civil-court jurisdiction intact.
Judgments Relied Upon	Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. vs Birendra Kumar Choudhury, (2002) 3 GLR 473 Perry Kansangra vs Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 Kamlesh Verma vs Mayawati & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320 BCCI vs Netaji Cricket, (2005) 4 SCC 741
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon	Principles of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: error apparent on face, discovery of new matter, sufficient reasons Doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit to prevent miscarriage of justice Statutory interpretation of Sections 96–97, 89 and 108 of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act, 2013
Facts as Summarised by the Court	Petitioner inherited LSC No. 103101/01/954 (1989); respondent held overlapping LSCs 1702 (1985) and 3081 (1986). Settlement Order dated 17.01.2022 by Director Land Revenue found no encroachment. Civil Suit No. 15/2022 sought declaration of title, cancellation of respondents’ LSCs, and voiding of the Settlement Order. Trial court dismissed for lack of civil-court jurisdiction under Sections 76, 89, 90, 96 of the Act. Regular First Appeal No. 29/2023 dismissed as revenue-court order bars civil suit. Review petition argued misapprehension of fact/law and new statutory clarification.
Citations	Review.Pet./2/2024; CNR GAHC030000882024 (2002) 3 GLR 473 (2019) 20 SCC 753 (2013) 8 SCC 320 (2005) 4 SCC 741

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All civil courts subordinate to the Gauhati High Court
Persuasive For	Other High Courts considering the scope of civil jurisdiction under land‐revenue statutes and review CPC
Follows	Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (2002 3 GLR 473)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Section 97(b) of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act expressly permits civil courts to hear private‐party title suits despite the bar in Section 96.
A civil‐court suit for declaration of title may proceed even after a revenue officer’s settlement order if the plaint prays for title and interest.
Review petitions under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC can correct errors of fact or law and consider newly discovered statutory clarifications.
Doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit supports review to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Coordinate-bench precedent in Thanda Bala Choudhury (2002 3 GLR 473) is reaffirmed for title disputes.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Error of Fact: The court had wrongly assumed petitioner admitted approaching a revenue court; in reality, she filed only a departmental complaint.
Prayer for Title: The plaint sought declaration of title and right over land, engaging Section 97(b) and Thanda Bala Choudhury.
New Clarification: Departmental letter showed Section 97’s reference to “Section 93” was clerical; it should read Section 96, confirming civil courts are not barred from private‐party title suits.
Review Jurisprudence: Applied Perry Kansangra and Kamlesh Verma—review maintainable for errors apparent on record, discovery of new matters, and any sufficient reason.
Doctrine Invoked: actus curiae neminem gravabit permits review to correct mistake and avoid injustice.
Conclusion: Civil courts have jurisdiction; the review corrects the earlier judgment and reinstates the suit.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Civil court jurisdiction exists under Section 97(b) for private‐party title suits.
No initial petition to revenue court—only a departmental complaint.
Plaint included prayer for declaration of title.
Departmental clarification of Section 97 is new evidence justifying review.
Review is maintainable to correct errors apparent on record.

Respondent

Review petition is in effect an appeal, not maintainable under Order XLVII.
Settlement Order was passed by competent revenue authority under Section 76; appeals lie to Commissioner Secretary (Section 89).
Boundary disputes are revenue-department domain; civil suit barred.

Factual Background

Smt. Lalrinpuii inherited LSC No. 103101/01/954 (1989). She alleged Sh. Rochungnunga’s LSCs 1702 (1985) and 3081 (1986) overlapped her land. On her complaint, a spot verification led to a Settlement Order (17.01.2022) finding no encroachment. She sued in Civil Suit No. 15/2022 for declaration of title, cancellation of respondents’ LSCs, and voiding of the Settlement Order. The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the first appeal was dismissed for being a revenue-court matter. She then filed the present review petition to correct that error and invoke civil-court jurisdiction.

Statutory Analysis

Section 96, MLR Act 2013: Grants exclusive jurisdiction to revenue courts and bars civil courts from setting aside or modifying revenue orders.
Section 97(b): Clarifies nothing in Section 96 prevents civil courts from entertaining suits between private parties to establish private rights affected by land-record entries.
Section 89: Provides appeal route from revenue-court orders to the Commissioner Secretary.
Section 108: Empowers the state to remove difficulties, including clerical/statutory corrections.
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC: Permits review for errors apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered matters.

Procedural Innovations

Confirms that departmental clarifications on statutory errors may be treated as new evidence in review petitions.
Affirms the inherent power of civil courts to review and correct judgments based on errors apparent on record or new statutory interpretations.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms Thanda Bala Choudhury & Anr. (2002 3 GLR 473)

Citations

Review.Pet./2/2024; CNR GAHC030000882024
(2002) 3 GLR 473
(2019) 20 SCC 753
(2013) 8 SCC 320
(2005) 4 SCC 741