Gauhati High Court
FAO/3/2026 of Sh. P.C. Lalrinawma Vs State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Mizoram and 6 Ors. on 1 July 2026
GAHC030004382026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030004382026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : FAO/3/2026
Sh. P.C. Lalrinawma
S/o Sawikunga (L)
R/o Dinthar Veng, Aizawl
Mizoram
VERSUS
State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Mizoram and 6 Ors.
Aizawl
2:The Secretary to the Govt of Mizoram
Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt
Govt of Mizoram
3:The Director
Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt. Govt of Mizoram 4:The Settlement Officer Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt Govt of Mizoram 5:The Commissioner Aizawl Municipal Council 6:Smt Ralmanthangi 7:Sh H. Lalnunmawia (L
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE 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
Date : 02-07-2026 Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. This appeal is against the Order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II in CMA No. 759/2025 A/o Civil Suit No. 106/2025.
3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court had required a verification to be conducted by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 5 in respect of their jurisdiction and to submit a report on 18.05.2026. By the same order, the defendant No. 6 was allowed to continue her construction on the eastern portion of the building.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the spot verification had already been carried out and a report dated 22.05.2026 had been prepared and a copy of the same has also been obtained by the appellants from the Officer-in-charge of the Vaivakawn Police Station and which is annexed to the appeal at page-171. It is seen that the directions for carrying out a spot verification by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 5 has already been carried out and the same will naturally be taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court as and when it is placed before the said Court and necessary orders would be passed in the litigation pending before it.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has however submitted that allowing the defendant No. 6 to continue her construction on any portion of the building, let alone the eastern portion of the building, would cause serious prejudice to the appellant and as would be evident from the report dated 22.05.2026, the defendant No. 6 in the litigation before the learned Trial Court has continued construction work of the RCC building over the entire disputed area. In such circumstances, he has submitted that the Order dated 17.04.2026 deserves an interference.
6. The matter is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court and relevant documents have been placed on record before the learned Trial Court. An appropriate application, stated to be numbered as CMA No. 485/2026, has also been filed, on which by the Order dated 18.06.2026, the learned Trial Court had recorded that the written objections have been received and the Court was adjourned fixing 30.07.2026. In view of the circumstances involved in this FAO, we do not deem it fit to keep the appeal pending before this Court and we also deem it fit that the learned Trial Court is required to adjudicate the litigation pending before it expeditiously.
7. Accordingly, this FAO is disposed of modifying the Order dated 17.04.2026 to the extent that the permission granted to the defendant No. 6 to continue her construction on the building in the disputed area within LSC No. 408/1974 is set aside and quashed. The defendant No. 6 shall not carry on any further construction on the building till 30.07.2026. The learned Trial Court shall on 30.07.2026, on an appropriate application being filed by the appellant for restraining the defendant No. 6 further on, adjudicate the same application as expeditiously as possible.
8. The FAO is accordingly disposed of.
9. The learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed with the adjudication of the Civil Suit No. 106/2025 and other miscellaneous applications arising therein in accordance with law.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant