Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030002812026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Cont.Cas(C)/15/2023 H.Hmingthanfela S/o H.Lalthanmawia (L) R/o Hortoki Venglai Kolasib District Mizoram VERSUS Sh R.Zarzosanga and 11 Ors. Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Aizawl MINECO Khatla Aizawl Mizoram 2:Sh VL Hruaizela Khiangte Director Directorate of Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl Khatla Mizoram 3:Sh John L.T.Sanga Deputy Commissioner Office of the Deputy Commissioner Kolasib District Mizoram 4:Sh S.S. Das Deputy Chief Engineer N.F. Railway Page No.# 2/4 Silchar Cachar Assam 5:The Project Manager N.C.Das and Co. Rangia Company Khamrang Kolasib District Kolasib Mizoram 6:Vinesh Kumar Deputy Chief Engineer N.F.Railway Silchar Cachar Assam 7:Zakir Hussain Project Manager N.C.Das and Co. Rangia Company Khamrang Kolasib District Kolasib Mizoram 8:Sh Vanlalthiana Director Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Govt. of Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Zodinpuia Hnamte Advocate for the Respondent : Mrs. Linda L Fambawl for R8 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN 23.07.2026 Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Page No.# 3/4 Daniel Hrahsel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 10. 2. This is a contempt application filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 29/2021. 3. By the said order, this Court had directed the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department to constitute a verification team consisting of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Kolasib or his representative, the Deputy Chief Engineer(Construction) Railways, Silchar, Cachar or his representative and the petitioner. The verification team was thereafter directed to verify the land of the petitioner within a time frame. It was further directed that the verification team should verify as to whether the land of the petitioner has been used by the respondents for construction of the road and if it is found by the verification team that it has been used as such, the respondent No. 4 the Railways was directed to decide as to whether they want to permanently acquire the land of the petitioner and if it is found that the said respondent is required to acquire the land, then necessary exercise should be taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the compensation should be paid to the land owner within a time frame. It was further directed by this Court that if respondent No. 4 decides not to acquire the land of the petitioner, in that case, respondent No. 3 i.e. the District Collector should verify and assess the damage caused to the petitioner’s land and the said assessment to be forward to the respondent No. 4, who would pay the amount within a time frame to the petitioner. 4. The said directions were intimated by the petitioner to the said respondent authorities vide the letter dated 09.06.2022. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the said order, verification was conducted and it was found that the Railways had constructed Page No.# 4/4 the road over the land of the petitioner. However, he submits that the rest of the directions contained in the said Order dated 05.08.2022 was not complied with by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel further submits that during pendency of the instant contempt petition, a settlement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, who undertook the construction work for the Railways and in the said Agreement, it was agreed that the said respondent would pay Rs. 6 lakhs to the petitioner as compensation for utilizing the land of the petitioner as the route for transporting materials for construction of Railway track. 6. It was further stated in the said Settlement that the said amount of Rs. 6 lakhs was already paid to the petitioner and that the petitioner does not have any claim pending with the respondents. It was also stated that the respondent authorities will vacate the petitioner’s land and that the same will not be used for the said purpose. The said Settlement is signed by both the parties i.e. the petitioner and the representative of the Company, who was using the petitioner’s land as a road for carrying the Railway materials. 7. In view of the settlement and in view of the specific statement made by the petitioner that compensation for the damage caused to his land has been accepted by the petitioner, this Court finds it fit that the instant contempt application be closed for the ends of justice. The contempt petition stands closed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant