Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030004392024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/67/2024 Sh. Chawngkhuma(L) substituted by Hmangaihsangzuali S/o Tuidapa (L), R/o Chhiahtlang, Serchhip District, Mizoram VERSUS The Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Dept., Govt. of Mizoram and 3 Ors. Aizawl-796001 2:The Deputy Commissioner and CALA NH-54 Widening and Upgradation Project Serchhip District 3:The General Manager (P) NHIDCL 4:The Superintendent of Police Serchhip Distric Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalchhanliana Khiangte Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1 & 4 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/6/2025 Smt. Hmangaihsangzuali D/o Chawngkhuma (L) R/o Chhiahtlang Serchhip District Page No.# 2/6 Mizoram-796181. VERSUS The Secretary Environment Forest and Climate Change Dept. and 3 Ors. Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl-796001. 2:The Deputy Commissioner and CALA Serchhip District NH-54 Widening and Upgradation Project Serchhip District. Mizoram-796181. 3:The General Manager (P) NHIDCL PMU-Seling C/o Tourist Lodge Thingsulthliah Mizoram-796161. 4:The Superintendent of Police Serchhip District Mizoram-796181. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Lalchhanliana Khiangte Advocate for the Respondent : B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 20.05.2025 Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Standing counsel for NHIDCL/respondent No. 3. 2. This is a writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, Page No.# 3/6 wherein the petitioners have sought for setting aside the Order dated 25.06.2024, which is a detailment order wherein the Executive Magistrate along with officials were detailed to conduct eviction drive on 04.07.2024 to provide encumbrance free land for construction of NH-54 Widening and Upgradation Project at Chhiahtlang. 3. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless this detailment order is stayed and the petitioner is evicted from his present residential building within LSC No. 606201/01/146 of 2005 located at Kawnveng Serchhip District, he would suffer tremendous hardship and irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s building was assessed by the CALA (competent authority for land acquisition) under estimated amount of Rs. 12,60,156/- only, the petitioner being dissatisfied had sought for re- verification and re-assessment of the compensation. Accordingly, the CALA re- estimated the value of the said building by submitting the verification report dated 16.03.2022, wherein the value of the building of the petitioner was reassessed and increased from Rs. 12,60,156/- to Rs. 18,98,351/-. Accordingly, the petitioner believed that he would be paid the additional enhanced amount of Rs. 6,38,195/- along with the statutory interest by the NHIDCL. However, the NHIDCL vide their letter dated 19.05.2022 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner (CALA) District Serchhip stated that individual may be paid compensation from the amount already deposited by NHIDCL to the joint account of G&M(P) and CALA. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter the petitioner had referred the matter for arbitration and the arbitrator had passed Page No.# 4/6 the Arbitral Order dated 22.03.2024 in Case No. 013/4 of 2021 under Section 3(G)(5) and (7) of the National Highways Act, 1956, wherein it was ordered that the petitioner shall be paid compensation as per re-assessment made by CALA, Serchhip which was already submitted to NHIDCL with solatium and interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the Arbitral Award dated 22.03.2024 in Case No. 013/4 of 2021, the respondent authorities had failed to give him the enhanced amount and therefore, the order for demolition of his house covered by LSC No. 606201/01/146 of 2005 located at Kawnveng Serchhip District should be stayed till the full payment before the demolition of his house. 5. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Standing counsel, NHIDCL submits that the respondent No. 3/NHIDCL has preferred an appeal before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge against the Arbitral Award dated 22.03.2024 in Case No. 013/4 of 2021 and the matter is still pending before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge. He further submitted that unless the respondents are able to demolish the house of the petitioner, the ongoing works in building NH-54 would be stalled and would not be able to complete before the coming monsoon. He further submitted that the construction of the road is in the interest of the public and the stalling of the works with regards to the construction of the roads NH- 54 till the full payment is received by the petitioner as alleged by him would be against public interest. He submits that by allowing the demolition of the building and widening of the roads would not in any way hamper the additional payment claimed by the petitioner if the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge upholds the said Arbitral Award dated 22.03.2024 in Case No. 013/4 of 2021. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited Vs. Page No.# 5/6 Montecarlo Limited & Anr., reported in (2022) 6 SCC 401 (para 46, 47 & 48). 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this Court finds that since the present matter for setting aside the Order dated 25.06.2024 also concerns the payment of the enhanced amount for the value of the building of the petitioner covered under LSC No. 606201/01/146 of 2005 located at Kawnveng Serchhip District as per the re-assessment made on 25th March, 2022 vide the Arbitral Award dated 22.03.2024 in Case No. 013/4 of 2021 (NH-54/013-SRCP/4/Arb-2021) which is under challenged and pending before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer for the setting aside of the impugned detailment order dated 25.06.2024 till the payment of the enhanced amount, should be placed and decided by the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, wherein the arbitral award is challenged. This Court finds that the petitioner should exhaust this alternative remedy which is available to the petitioner. 7. This Court thus find it appropriate to refrain itself from passing any order regarding the setting aside of the impugned detailment order dated 25.06.2024. However, in the interest of justice, on considering the fact that the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 05.06.2024, which was further extended on the next dates of listing, this Court finds that it would be appropriate to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 for another period of 1 (one) month to give the petitioner the opportunity to approach the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, if so advised. 8. It may be noted that this extension of stay of the operation of the Page No.# 6/6 impugned Order dated 25.06.2024 for a period of 1 (one) month is not to have any impact or influence the decision of the concerned learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, while considering the appeal against the Arbitration Award dated 22.03.2024, or any subsequent application, if any, for further stay of the operation of the mentioned impugned order. 9. Accordingly, Writ Petition (C) No. 67/2024 stands disposed of as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant