Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/148/2025 of The State of Mizoram r/b The Secretary to teh Govt. of Mizoram, Public Works Department Vs Sh. Lianchhunga and 7 Ors. on 2 September 2026
GAHC030005612025 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030005612025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/148/2025
The State of Mizoram r/b The Secretary to teh Govt. of Mizoram, Public Works Department Aizawl
VERSUS
Sh. Lianchhunga and 7 Ors.
S/o Laiawrha
R/o Lungmuat Village, Kolasib District
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. C Lalhruaitluanga BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
03.09.2026 Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. S. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. By way of the present interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Order XLI Rule 3-A of the
CPC, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 156 days in preferring the connected appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib in L.A. Case No. 31/2015.
3. It appears that by the judgment and award dated 17.12.2024, the learned trial Court, inter alia, directed payment of enhanced land value at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. ft. on the basis of the area of land acquired as reflected in Award No. 3 of 2014 dated 23.04.2015, besides compensation towards damage to crops. The learned trial Court further directed that the aforesaid compensation be multiplied by two and also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of pronouncement of the award.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the applicant has preferred the connected appeal. However, there being a delay of 156 days in filing the appeal, the present application has been filed seeking condonation thereof.
5. The explanation furnished by the applicant, in substance, is that the impugned judgment and award was received in the personal branch of the Commissioner and Secretary, PWD, only on 21.02.2025, and was thereafter forwarded through the concerned offices of the PWD and the Engineer-in-Chief for examination and further action. The applicant has referred to the intervening court and government holidays and the change of charge of the Engineer-in-Chief on 28.02.2025. Thereafter, the matter was examined by the Legal Officer, meetings were held with the concerned officials, and further documents were sought from the concerned authorities for the purpose of examining the feasibility of an appeal.
6. It is further stated that the process of engaging private counsel was thereafter undertaken and the matter remained under consideration before the Law & Judicial Department, Government of Mizoram. Approval for engagement of the present counsel was ultimately conveyed on 05.06.2025 and the same was communicated to the counsel on 06.06.2025. The counsel thereafter undertook examination of the connected matters, which, according to the applicant, involved 12 cases relating to the Serkhan-Bagha Road. The applicant has also referred to the intervening court holidays and the time taken thereafter for preparation, drafting and finalisation of the appeal and the present application. On the aforesaid basis, the applicant states that a delay of 156 days had occasioned in filing the appeal.
7. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the applicant had been pursuing the matter bona fide. He accordingly seeks condonation of the delay.
8. Mr. M. S. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in his usual fairness, submits that he has received no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the averments made in the application, this Court is of the view that the explanation furnished by the applicant, taken as a whole, constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the appeal. The chronology placed before the Court indicates that the matter underwent various stages of administrative examination, collection of relevant records and consideration of the question of engaging counsel before the appeal could ultimately be prepared and presented. The delay, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be attributable to any deliberate or contumacious inaction on the part of the applicant.
10. Accordingly, the delay of 156 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned.
11. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant