Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/35/2026 of Sh. Lalnghinglova Vs The State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. on 27 July 2026
GAHC030002052026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030002052026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/35/2026
Sh. Lalnghinglova
S/o Thangluaia (L),
Falkland, Aizawl, Mizoram
VERSUS
The State of Mizoram and 3 Ors.
R/b Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl 2:The Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Collector 3:The Director Department of Disaster Management and Rehabilitation 4:The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (PWD
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Samuel L Pachuau Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1-4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
JUDGMENT / ORDER
28.07.2026
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.
1. Heard Mr. Samuel L. Pachuau, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the State respondents have started unauthorized excavation work on the land of the petitioner, which is covered by LSC No.3341/1985 located at Falkland, Aizawl.
2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the excavation work on the land of the petitioner was undertaken without any notice being given to the petitioner or consent taken from the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.02.2026 to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, with a prayer to cause an inquiry to ascertain the Department or Authority which has undertaken the excavation work on the petitioner’s land and if it was found that the land of the petitioner had been effected, the land of the petitioner should be acquired as per the Acquisition Law applicable in the State.
3. On a query raised to the petitioner’s counsel as to which Department had undertaken the excavation work on the petitioner’s land, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not know the said Department.
4. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents is present along with a Junior Engineer of the PWD, who has undertaken the excavation work for construction of a retaining wall. They submit that the land of the petitioner has not been effected by the work undertaken by the PWD Department. The learned Government Advocate submits that a spot verification had been conducted on 11.04.2026, wherein it was found that the excavation work done by the PWD did not encroach upon the land of the petitioner.
5. In view of the above disputed question of fact, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Writ Court, as evidence would have to be adduced. However, if the petitioner is of the view that the submissions of the learned Government Advocate for the State respondent and the Junior Engineer, PWD is factually wrong, he may approach the Civil Court with his grievance.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant