Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 3536 OF 2008

J. Thansiama        ... Appellant (s)

Versus

State of Mizoram & Ors.                ...    Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The Gauhati High Court by the 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 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.

Page 2

2

2. The  High  Court  in  a  very  exhaustive  and  illuminating

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 to the said details except to record what would be

strictly required for the purposes of the present adjudication,

namely,  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.  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 relevant to the case [on 14.3.1966 or prior to the changes

brought in by North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971]

read as follows :

Page 3

3

“Tribal Areas 20.  (1) The areas specified in Parts  A  and  B  of  the  table below shall be the tribal areas within the State of Assam.

(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 municipality of Shillong but, including  so  much  of  the  area  comprised within the municipality of Shillong as formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem :

Provided that for the purposes of clauses (e) and (f) of sub-paragraph (1), paragraph 3, paragraph  4,  paragraph  5,  paragraph  6, sub-paragraph (2),  clauses (a),  (b)  and (d)  of sub-paragraph  (3)  and  sub-paragraph  (4)  of paragraph 8, and clause (d) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, no part of the area comprised within the municipality of Shillong  shall  be  deemed  to  be  within  the district.

(2a) The  Mizo  District  shall  comprise  the areas  which  at  the  commencement  of  this Constitution  was  known as  the  Lushai  Hills District...

(3) Any reference in the table below to any district  (other  than  the  United  Khasi-Jaintia Hills  District  and  the  Mizo  District)  or administrative  area  shall  be  construed  as  a reference  to  that  district  or  area  at  the commencement of this Constitution :

Provided that the tribal areas specified in Part B of the table below shall not include any such  areas  in  the  plains  as  may,  with  the

Page 4

4

previous approval of the President, be notified by the Governor of Assam in that behalf.

TABLE

PART   A

1. The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District. 2. The Garo Hills District. 3. The Mizo  District. 4. ****** 5. The North Cachar Hills 6. The Mikir Hills.

PART  B

******       ******  ***** ***** *****”

4. The Governor of  Assam issued Notification bearing No.

TAD/GA/12/64 dated 14.3.1966 whereby the operation of the

Limitation  Act  1963  was  excluded  from the  tribal  areas  of

Assam as specified in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution,

the  details  of  which  have  been  extracted  above.  The

Notification dated 14.3.1966 is in the following terms :

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b)  of  the  sub-paragraph  (1)  and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule  to  the  Constitution  of  India,  the Governor of Assam is pleased to direct that the Limitation Act, 1963, (No. 36 of 1963) shall not apply to the Tribal Areas of Assam specified in Part A of the table appended to paragraph 20 of  the  Sixth  Schedule  to  the  Constitution  of

Page 5

5

India,  with  effect  from  the  1st of  January, 1964.”

5. It will be necessary to take note of the fact that as on the

date of the said Notification Mizo District was included in the

tribal areas of Assam.   

6. The next relevant fact that will have to be taken note of is

the  enactment  of  the  North-Eastern  Areas  (Reorganisation)

Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reorganisation Act’]

which provided for the establishment of the States of Manipur,

Tripura, Meghalaya and the Union Territories of Mizoram and

Arunachal  Pradesh  by  reorganising  the  original  State  of

Assam.  Section 6 contained in Part II of the Reorganisation

Act  provided  for  the  formation  of  the  Union  Territory  of

Mizoram from the effective date i.e. 21.1.1972, comprising the

territories of the Mizo District of the original State of Assam.

Section 71 of the Reorganisation Act stipulated that the

Sixth  Schedule  to the Constitution shall  stand amended as

provided in the Eighth Schedule to the Reorganisation Act.  In

the  Eighth  Schedule  to  the  Reorganisation  Act,  Para  20

dealing with tribal areas was amended and divided into three

parts.   Of  relevance  would  be  Part  III  which specified   the

Page 6

6

tribal  areas of  the Union Territory of  Mizoram as “the Mizo

District”.  Para 12B to the Sixth Schedule was also introduced

and the said provision dealt  with application of  the Acts of

Parliament  and  other  Acts  to  the  autonomous  districts  of

Mizoram.  Under Para 12B the President was authorized to

direct that any Act of Parliament shall not apply or apply with

modification to an autonomous district or region in the Union

Territory of Mizoram. Para 12B was further amended by the

Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Act, 1971 as it

became so necessary upon the Constitution of the Legislative

Assembly of the Union Territory of Mizoram. However, it is not

necessary for us to specifically notice the details in this regard

so far as the present case is concerned.  

Section  77  of  the  Reorganisation  Act  provided  that

notwithstanding  the  establishment  of  the  newly  constituted

States and Union Territories any law which was applicable to a

territory  prior  to  the  constitution  of  the  State  or  Union

Territory will continue to apply in the newly established State

or a Union Territory.

Section  79  of  the  Reorganisation  Act  provided  that  to

facilitate the application of any law in relation to any State or

Page 7

7

Union Territory formed under the provisions of Part II of the

Reorganisation Act  the appropriate  Government  may,  before

the  expiration  of  two  years  from the  appointed  date,  make

such  adaptations  or  modifications  of  the  law  as  may  be

necessary or expedient.  Once such adaptation or modification

is made the law shall have effect subject to such adaptations

and modifications until the same is altered or repealed by the

competent legislature or the competent authority.

7. It  will  also  require  to  be  noticed  that  with  effect  from

29.4.1972 Part III of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule was further

amended and “the Mizo District” ceased to be a part of  the

tribal  areas  of  the  Union  Territory  of  Mizoram  and  the

Chakma, Lakher  and Pawi  districts came to be included in

Part III as the tribal areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram.

There were some further changes in the aforesaid tribal areas

with which we would not be strictly concerned in the present

case.

8. To make the narration of facts complete, the provisions of

the  State  of  Mizoram Act,  1986 may be  referred to  for  the

purposes of bringing on record the fact of creation of the State

Page 8

8

of Mizoram by the aforesaid Act with effect from 20.02.1987.

There were certain parallel  changes in the provisions of  the

Sixth Schedule including Para 12B and Para 20 thereof upon

creation of the State of Mizoram.  However, as the said facts,

again, are not strictly relevant to the present case, a detailed

notice thereof would not be necessary.   

9. What, however, would require a pointed notice is that the

Notification  dated  14.03.1966  issued  by  the  Governor  of

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 with effect from

21.1.1972.  The further developments (historical, geographical

and  constitutional),  namely,  the  exclusion/omission  of  the

Mizo district even from the tribal areas of the Union Territory

of Mizoram; the dissolution of the Mizo District Council and

the addition of Pawai, Lakher and Chakma Districts to part III

of  Para 20 of  the Sixth Schedule as the tribal  areas of  the

Union  Territory  of  Mizoram,  of  which  all  developments  had

occurred subsequent to the creation of the Union Territory of

Page 9

9

Mizoram,  would  further  fortify  the  above  position.   The

aforesaid facts would demonstrate that the Notification dated

14.03.1966  ex facie would not apply to the areas within the

erstwhile  Mizo District  of  the State  of  Assam once the said

areas  ceased  to  be  so  and  came  to  comprise  the  Union

Territory of Mizoram with effect from 21.1.1972 by virtue of

Section 6 of the Reorganisation Act.   

10. Indeed it is correct that the Gauhati High Court in  The

State of Meghalaya vs. U. William Mynsong  1 has held that

in view of the notification dated 14.3.1966, the Limitation Act

1963 will not apply to the State of Meghalaya. The reasoning of

the High Court in the said case has been pressed into service

for our acceptance in the present case also on account of the

parity of the facts of the two cases.  Having gone through the

said  judgment  we  are  unable  to  accept  the  reasoning

contained therein. However, we say no more as the correctness

of view expressed in the State of Meghalaya vs. U. William

Mynsong (supra) is not under challenge before us; neither is

the question involved therein, namely, the application of the

1 (1987 (2) GLR 221)

Page 10

10

Limitation  Act,  1963  to  the  State  of  Meghalaya the  issue

arising in the present case.  

11.    In  Regional  Provident  Fund  Commissioner  vs.

Shillong  City  Bus  Syndicate  &  Ors.  2  the  question  of

applicability of Acts of Parliament to Khasi Hills autonomous

District in the light of the provisions of the Sixth Schedule had

received an elaborate consideration of this Court. In the said

case, the provisions of  the Employees’  Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous  Provisions  Act,  1952  were  held  to  be

inapplicable to the tribal areas/District Council areas of Khasi

Hills  by  the  High  Court.  The  High  Court  seems  to  have

proceeded  on  the  basis  that  after  constitution  of  the  tribal

areas  of  State  of  Meghalaya  by  the  North-Eastern  Areas

(Reorganisation) Act, 1971, no notification was published by

the Governor under Para 19 of the Sixth Schedule making the

aforesaid Act applicable to the Khasi Hills District. The said

Act, therefore, did not come into operation and, consequently,

after the constitution of the District Council, the Act did not

become operative and effective on its own.  

2 1996 (8) SCC 741

Page 11

11

12. Dealing with the aforesaid view of the High Court, it was

pointed  out  that  the  provisions  of  Para  19  of  the  Sixth

Schedule  are  transitional  and  with  the  constitution  of  the

District  Council,  Para  19  ceased  to  operate.  Therefore,  the

application of laws were to be governed by the provisions of

Para 12A (as applicable to the State of Meghalaya) of the Sixth

Schedule  which  required  the  exclusion  or  application  with

modifications  of  any  Act  of  Parliament  to  be  made  by

notification  issued  by  the  President.  To  arrive  at  the  above

conclusion in the matter,  references have been made to the

Constituent Assembly Debates and to a celebrated work on the

subject, reference to which are to be found in Para 12 and 14

of the report which may be usefully extracted below:-

12. Dr  Ambedkar,  during  the  debates  in  the Constituent Assembly stated in unequivocal  terms that:

“…the other binding force is this that the laws made  by  Parliament  and  the  laws  made  by  the Legislature  of  Assam  will  automatically  apply  to these  Regional  Councils  and  to  the  District Councils.  Unless  the  Governor  thinks  that  they ought not to apply, in other words, the burden is upon the Governor to show why the law which is made by the Legislature of Assam or by Parliament, should not apply. Generally, the laws made by the Legislature and the laws made by Parliament will also be applicable to these areas”.

Page 12

12

14. B.L. Hansaria,  J. in his  Sixth Schedule to the Constitution  of  India  —  a  Study (1983  Edn.) published by M/s Ashok Publishing House, Gauhati has stated at p. 45 thus:

“Insofar  as  the  Acts  or  (sic)  Parliament  are concerned, the provisions in respect of tribal areas broadly  speaking is  that  the  Governor,  in case of tribal areas in Assam, and the President in respect of the two other tribal areas, may notify that the Act shall not apply to an autonomous district or region, or  shall  apply  subject  to  such  exceptions  or modifications as may be specified. A question arises whether an Act of Parliament would apply proprio vigore  if  there  be  no  notification  prohibiting  its application.”

13. The eventual conclusion of this Court are to be found in

Para 16 which is quoted below with the clarification that Para

12A referred to therein pertains to the autonomous Districts or

Regional Councils in the State of Meghalaya whereas in the

instant  case  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Sixth  Schedule

would be Paragraph 12B as initially applicable to the Union

Territory of Mizoram and thereafter to the State of Mizoram.

“16. It would, thus, be clear that, on constitution of the District or Regional Council, paragraph 19 ceases to  operate  and  power  of  the  Governor  becomes coterminous and ceases to exist. Simultaneously, the power  of  the  District  or  Regional  Council  becomes operational  to  make  laws  on  subjects  covered  in paragraph 3 of  the  Sixth  Schedule.  Proprio  vigore, paragraph  12-A  comes  into  force.  By  operation  of paragraph  12-A(b),  the  President  has  been

Page 13

13

empowered to direct by a notification that any Act of Parliament should not be made applicable or made applicable  with  such  modifications  and  exceptions, as may be specified in the said notification.  In other words,  until  such  notification  is  published  by  the President,  all  Acts  of  Parliament  which  are  not occupied by the provisions contained in paragraph 3 shall proprio vigore become operative in the area of the Autonomous Regions or Districts in the State of Meghalaya.”         (underlining is ours)

14.  We also do not  find any substance in the arguments

advanced on behalf of the appellant that the Notification dated

14.3.1966  would  continue  to  be  applicable  to  the  Union

Territory  and  the  successor  State  of  Mizoram  by  virtue  of

Section 24 of the General Clauses Act.  We do not see how the

said  provisions  of  the  General  Clauses  Act  can  have  any

application to the present case.   

15. Consequently, we dismiss the present appeal and affirm

the view taken by the High Court.

..……..……......................J.                                              (RANJAN GOGOI)

….……..…….....................J.                                        (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2015.