I.A.(Civil)/144/2025 of The State of Mizoram Vs Smt Thangchhungi and 30 Ors. on 2 September 2026

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 Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 155 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl

Judicial District, Kolasib in L.A. Case No. 30/2015.

3. By the impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2024, the learned trial Court, inter alia, directed payment of compensation to the petitioners for damage caused to their crops/properties and, in respect of the specified claimants, for loss of house buildings, with a multiplier of two years. The learned Court further directed payment of solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of pronouncement of the award.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the connected appeal. However, there is a delay of 155 days in filing the same, for which the present application has been preferred.

5. The explanation furnished by the applicant is, essentially, that although the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 17.12.2024, a copy thereof was received in the personal branch of the Commissioner and Secretary, PWD only on 03.03.2025 and was thereafter transmitted through the concerned offices of the PWD for examination and further necessary action. The matter was considered by the Legal Officer of the Department, followed by consultations and meetings at different levels regarding the feasibility of preferring an appeal. Certain documents were also sought from the concerned authorities. Thereafter, steps were taken for obtaining a certified copy of the impugned judgment and award, which was obtained on 14.05.2025.

6. It is further stated that, during the subsequent period, the question of engagement of counsel and approval of the legal fees was under consideration before the concerned authorities and the Law & Judicial

Department. Approval for engagement of the present counsel was ultimately conveyed on 05.06.2025. Thereafter, the counsel examined the connected matters, which included 12 cases arising out of the Serkhan-Bagha road project, and steps were taken for preparation and finalisation of the appeal as well as the present application. The applicant has also referred to the intervening court recesses and holidays during the relevant period.

7. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor occasioned by any wilful negligence on the part of the applicant. He submits that the applicant is a Government department and the delay occurred in the course of inter- departmental consideration, obtaining the necessary records and approvals, and taking steps for engagement of counsel. He accordingly submits that sufficient cause has been shown and prays for 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 considered the submissions of 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, when considered in its entirety, constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the appeal. The chronology placed before the Court indicates that the matter did receive consideration at various levels and that steps were ultimately taken for obtaining the certified copy, securing approval for engagement of counsel and preparation of the appeal. The intervening court holidays and recesses also form part of the period sought to be explained.

10. It is true that the applicant is required to explain the delay with reasonable diligence and cannot claim condonation merely on the ground that it is a Government department. Nevertheless, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the explanation furnished cannot, in its entirety, be characterised as lacking in bona fides or as constituting deliberate inaction. The respondent also does not oppose the prayer.

11. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 155 days in preferring the connected appeal.

12. The delay of 155 days in filing the connected appeal is, accordingly, condoned.

13. The interlocutory application stands allowed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant