J. THANSIAMA versus STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS.
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 445, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[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 of Mylliem : 
Provided that for the purposes of
clauses (e) and (f) of G 
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 
H

448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S. C.R. 
A 
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 
B 
Lushai Hills District. .. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(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 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. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
The Mizo District. 
****** 
The North Cachar Hills 
The Mikir Hills. 
PART B 
*-11 "*** 
. ***"'** 
***** 
***** 
*****n 
4. The Governor of Assam issued Notification bearing No.
J. THANSIAMA v. STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS. 
449 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
TAD/GA/12/64 dated 14 .3 .1966 whereby the operation of the A 
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: 
"Jn exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of the 
sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 
B 
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 C 
Areas of Assam specified in Part A of the table appended 
to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution 
of India, with effect from the 151 of January, 1964." 
5. It will be necessary to take note of the fact that as on o 
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) 
E 
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 
F 
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 G 
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 Ill which specified the tribal areas 
f-1
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
of the Union Territory of Mizoram as "the Mizo District". Para 
128 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 
128 the President was authorized to direct that any Act of 
8 
Parliament shall not apply or apply with modification to an 
autonomous district or region in the Union Territory of Mizoram. 
Para 128 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 
C 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 
D 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. 
E 
Section 79 of the Reorganisation Act provided that to 
facilitate the application of any law in relation to any State or 
Union Territory formed under the provisions of Part II of the 
Reorganisation Act the appropriate Government may, before 
F 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 
G competent legislature or the competent authority. 
7. It will also require to be noticed that with effect from 
29.4.1972 Part Ill of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule was further 
amended and "the Mizo District" ceased to be a part of the 
H tribal areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram and the Chakma,
J. THANSIAMA v. STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS. 
451 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
Lakher and Pawi districts came to be included in Part Ill as the A 
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 
B 
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 
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 128 and Para 20 thereof upon C 
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 noti<::e is that D 
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 E 
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 
F 
Council and the addition of Pawai, Lakher and Chakma 
Districts to part Ill 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 Mizorarn, would further fortify the above G 
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 H
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 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 Meg ha lava vs. U. William Mvnsong1 has held that 
B 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 
C 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 Meg ha/ a ya vs. 
U. William Mynsong (supra) is not under challenge before 
us; neit~er is the question involved therein, namely, the 
D application of the 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.~ the question of 
E 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 
F 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 
G the Governor under Para 19 of the Sixth Schedule making the 
aforesaid Act applicable to tbe Khasi Hills District. The said 
Act, therefore, did not come into operation and, consequently, 
1 (1987 (2) GLR 221) 
H 
2 1996 (8) sec 741
J. THANSIAMA v. STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS. 
453 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
after the constitution of the District Council, the Act did not A 
become operative and effective on its own. 
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 B 
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 r:nodifications 
of any Act of Parliament to be made by notification issued by C 
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:- · 
D 
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 E 
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 w.hich is made by the 
F 
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" . 
., 
14. B.L. Hansaria, J. in his Sixth Schedule to the G 
Constitution of India -
i:l Study (1983 Edn.) published 
by M/sAshok Publishing House, Gauhati has stated at p. 
45thus: 
"Insofar as the Acts or (sic) Parliament are concerned, 
H 
the provisions in respect of tribal areas broadly speaking
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
"' 
A 
is that the Governor, in case of tribal areas in Assam, ana 
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 
B 
whether an Act of Parliament would apply proprio vigore 
ifthere 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 
C 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 128 as initially applicable to 
the Union Territory of Mizoram and thereafter to the State of 
D Mizoram. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"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 empoitered 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 puolished 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

J. THANSIAMAv. STATE OF MIZORAM & ORS. 
455 
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
advanced on behalf of the appellant that the Notification dated A 
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. 
B 
15. Consequently, we dismiss the present appeal and 
affirm the view taken by the High Court. 
NidhiJain 
Appeal dismissed.