Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6/2026 of Smt. Lalengzuali Vs The State of Mizoram and 8 Ors. on 8 June 2026
GAHC030000382026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030000382026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6/2026
Smt. Lalengzuali
D/o Thangzuala
R/o Bungtlang, Serchhip District, Mizoram - 796181
VERSUS
The State of Mizoram and 8 Ors.
R/b the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl, Mizoram - 796001
2:The District Magistrate
Serchhip District
3:The Secretary
Home Department
Govt. of Mizoram
4:The Superintendent of Police
Serchhip District
5:The Officer-In-Charge
Serchhip Police Station
6:The President
Central Young Mizo Association
7:The President
8:The President
9:The President
Village Counci
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 1-5
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
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
09.06.2026
Heard Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate appears for respondent Nos. 1-5 and Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. The petitioner has filed the present petition on the ground that she and her family were forcibly evicted from their residential house at Bungtlang, Serchhip by respondent No. 7, without any authority of Law and without due process of Law, thereby violating their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the District
Authorities have opened the petitioner’s house in the presence of her relatives on 19.02.2026, which was shut with a wooden plank. Further, the petitioner and her family are now living in their own house. She also submits that a meeting was convened by the Deputy Commissioner, Serchhip on 19.02.2026, which showed that the petitioner and her family were allowed to return to their house. Further, the community representative submitted a joint declaration, admitting that their action was unlawful and affirmed that they bore no ill will towards the petitioner or her family. They also undertook not to cause any disturbance to the family of the petitioner. Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that the respondent No. 6 had nothing to do with the eviction of the petitioner and her family from the petitioner’s house or the boarding up of their house. On considering that the issue has been resolved, this Court does not intend to keep the matter pending in this Court. The writ petition is accordingly closed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant