Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/139/2026 of Sh. Pazawna (L) represented by Sh. Vanlalthanpuia and Anr. Vs Sh. Vanlalmawia and 5 Ors. on 2 July 2026
GAHC030004802026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030004802026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/139/2026
Sh. Pazawna (L) represented by Sh. Vanlalthanpuia and Anr.
S/o K. Laltlanthangi, R/o Kawnral, Khawchungtlang, Muallungthu, Aizawl District,
Mizoram - 796005
2: Sh. Lalhmangaihzual
VERSUS
Sh. Vanlalmawia and 5 Ors.
S/o Lalbiakliana, R/o Mualpui Police Complex, Aizawl, Mizoram - 796001
2:The State of Mizoram
3:The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram 4:The Director 5:The Joint Director of Survey 6:The Assistant Settlement Office Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : RSA/4/2026
Sh. Pazawna (L) represented by Sh. Vanlalthanpuia and Anr.
S/o K. Laltlanthangi
R/o Kawnral
Khawchungtlang
Muallungthu
Aizawl District
Mizoram - 796005
2: Sh. Lalhmangaihzuala
S/o Vanlalenga
R/o Khawchungtlang
Muallungthu
Aizawl District
Mizoram - 796005
VERSUS
Sh. Vanlalmawia and 5 Ors
S/o Lalbiakliana
R/o Mualpui Police Complex
Aizawl
Mizoram - 796001
2:The State of Mizoram
Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Mizoram Secretariat Building No. 1
New Capital Complex (MINECO)
Khatla
Aizawl
Mizoram - 796001
3:The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Revenue Department Mizoram Secretariat Building No. 2
New Capital Complex (MINECO)
Khatla
Aizawl
Mizoram - 796001
4:The Director
Land Revenue and Settlement Department
Mizoram
New Secretariat Complex
MINECO
Khatla
Aizawl
Mizoram - 796001
5:The Joint Director of Survey
Land Revenue and Settlement Department
New Secretariat Complex
MINECO
Khatla
Aizawl
Mizoram - 796001
6:The Assistant Settlement Officer
Land Revenue and Settlement Department
New Secretariat Complex
MINECO
Khatla
Aizawl
Mizoram - 796001
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent :
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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
03.07.2026
In view of the orders sought to be passed, notice on the private respondent No. 1 is not deemed necessary.
2. This is an application filed by the applicant who is also the appellant in the connected RSA praying for condonation of 3 days delay in filing the connected RSA.
3. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Stephen
Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the RFA No. 11/2021 was disposed of by the order dated 01.04.2026, by the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl and the period of limitation for filing an appeal against the said order was of 90 days as per law. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the date of the application for the certified copy had been made on 25.06.2026 which was within the period of limitation.
4. However, the certified copies of the orders had been handed over to the petitioner only on 02.07.2026 and the connected RSA and this Interlocutory Application praying for condonation of delay had been filed on 02.07.2026 itself.
5. Accordingly, he submits that if the number of days required for obtaining certified copy are taken into account in accordance with law, there is no delay in filing the connected RSA.
6. We have heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 2-6, who has submitted that from the copy of the order annexed as Annexure-I to the Interlocutory Application, it is also apparent that the dates stated by the learned Senior Counsel are correct.
7. In view of the fact that the appellant had applied for the certified copies of the orders sought to be impugned in the RSA within a period of limitation and the appeal has been filed on the date on which the said certified copies had been supplied to the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the delay of 3 days, deserves to be condoned and the RSA is required to be heard.
9. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant